f LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, t 

i' r— r-r ^ 

# - --:--■-- L— # 

^UNITED STATES OF AMKRICA.J 



CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

REV. Dtr:NrcAiNT d. currie, 

OP THE CONFERENCE OF EASTERN BRITISH AMERICA. 



*'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall TDe clean."— 
EzEKiEL 36 : 25. 

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon 
all flesh."— Joel 2 : 28. 

*' For the promise is unto you, and to your children." — Acts : 39. 



ENLARGED EDITION 



S. W. GREEN, PRINTER, 16 AND 18 JACOB STREET. 

1869. 

0^' 



^nJ 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by 

DUNCAN D. CURRIE, 

in the Clerk's Oflace of the District Court of the United States for the Southern 

District of New-York. 



PEE FACE 



This Catechism is written because such a work is believed to 
be needed. Many, who have not access to larger and better 
books on this theme, will be glad to accept a compact, concise, 
and clear statement of this subject, as it is taught in the volume 
of inspiration. Of course, in a work of so small compass, the 
writer could only present an outline of some of the points that 
invite discussion. Those into whose hands this pamphlet will 
fall, and who have thought and read largely upon this topic, will 
recognize, in the arguments advanced, many old acquaintances, 
and in very much the same garb in which they have been met 
before. The writer has aimed, in the preparation of these pages, 
to be useful rather than original. He has borrowed freely, when 
it suited his purpose to do so. He is, moreover, specially in- 
debted to the admirable works on baptism, by Rev. F. G. Hib- 
bard, D.I)., and Rev. D. D. Wheden, D.D. It is believed this 
work will do good ; and, invoking the blessing of God upon it, 

it is sent forth to accomplish its destiny. 

D. D. 0. 
Sussex Yale, N. B., May, 1864 



PREFACE TO ENLARGED EDITIOS. 



The first part of this Catechism was published about five years 
ago. Several editions of the work have, meanwhile, been sold. 
Various circumstances have combined to indicate the necessity of 
a fuller treatment of the subject than was aimed at in the prepa- 
ration of the first edition. The criticisms to which it has been 
subjected, by persons of opposite views, have called for conside- 
ration. The second part of this work has, therefore, been written. 
If it had not been that the first part was originally stereotyped, 
it is probable that, in preparing the larger work, the mould would 
have been broken up, and the work recast. The writer acknow- 
ledges indebtedness to others who have preceded him in this field 
of discussion; and he is specially indebted, in the chapter on 
Classic Baptism, to an elaborate and excellent work on that sub- 
ject, by Rev. James "W. Dale. If these pages shall, as it is hoped, 
help inquiring minds to recognize and accept the truth, and thus 
promote the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, they will not 
have been written in vain. D. D. C. 

Feedericton, N. B., October, 1869. 



OOI^TEETS. 



FIRST PART. 



Chap. Page 

I. Different Baptisms 5 

II. Jewish Baptisms 5 

III. Scriptural Washing 7 

IV. Importance of Mosaic Baptism , 9 

T. Meaning of the Greek Word Baptize 11 

VI. Classical Meaning of the Greek Word Baptizo 12 

VII. Scriptural Meaning of the Word Baptizo, 13 

VIII. Affusion 16 

IX. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 16 

X. John's Baptism 20 

XI. The Mode of John's Baptism 24 

XII. Christ's Baptism 24 

XIII. Christian Baptism 26 

XIV. The Subjects of Christian Baptism 28 

XV. Circumcision and Baptism ... * 38 

XVI. Mode of Christian Baptism 30 

XVII. Philip and the Eunuch 41 

XVIII. The Jailer of Philippi 43 

XIX. Buried by Baptism , 43 

XX. Israelites Baptized unto Moses 45 

XXI. Noah and the Ark 45 

XXII. Paul and ApoUos 46 

XXIII. He that Belie veth and is Baptized , 47 

XXIV. The Immersionist Creed Inconsistent and Narrow 48 



VI CONTENTS. 



SECOND PART. 
Chap. Page 

XXV. Positions Defined 51 

XXVI. Immersionist Stratagem 53 

XXVII. Paul and Regeneration 60 

XXVIII. Immersionists and tlie Greek Word Baptizo 6G 

XXIX. Meaning of Words 68 

XXX. Classic Baptism 70 

XXXI. Modes of Classic Baptism 73 

XXXII. Immersionist Inconsistencies 81 

XXXIII. Testimony of Christian Greek Authors 84 

XXXIV. The Baptism of Blood 86 

XXXV. Religious Purification , 87 

XXXVI. Naamanthe Syrian .' 92 

XXXVII. Greek Church Baptism 94 

XXXVIII. Christ's Ordination 97 

XXXIX. Dipping Difficulties 103 

XL. Immersionists and Infant Baptism 107 

XLI. The Covenant of Grace 110 

XLII. The Great Commission 115 

XLIII. The School of Christ 116 

XLIV. The Day of Pentecost 118 

XLV. Apostolic Examples 119 

XL VI. Believers' Baptism 122 

XLVIL Objections Considered. 124 

XLVIII. The Immersionist Bible 123 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

FIEST PAET. 



I. — ^Different Baptisms. 

1. Are there different baptisms mentioned in the Scrip- 
tures ? 

Yes. Jewish baptisms, or the baptisms required by 
the Mosaic ritual. John's baptism. Christian baptism, 
or the baptism of water required in the Christian dis- 
pensation. And the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 

II. — Jewish Baptisms. 

2. What were the Jewish baptisms? 

Various washings imposed by the Mosaic ritual, 
and which were to continue until the beginning of the 
Christian dispensation. Hebrews 9:8-10: "Which 
stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, 
{baptisms in the original Greek,) and carnal ordinances, 
imposed on them until the time of reformation." 

3. To what did these baptisms pertain ? 

These divers baptisms were ordinances pertaining to 
the flesh or body ; they were therefore personal. 

4. How is it shown that these baptisms were personal ? 
The Apostle contrasts the inefficacy of these various 

baptisms, visibly applied to the person to purify the con- 
science, with the sufficient efficacy of the blood of Christ 
when sprinkled in behalf of the person. Hebrews 9:13, 
14: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the 
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the im clean, sanctifieth to 
the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the 



6 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

bloocl of Christ .... purge your coiiscience from dead 
works to serve the living God." 

5. Were the priests to be subjects of these baptisms ? 
It Avas required of the priests that they should be 

cleaused for the work of the ministry and the priesthood, 
by the sprinkling of water upon them, and by their be- 
ing anointed with oil. 

6. Did the Mosaic ritual require that the priests should 
be washed with water ? 

Yes. And that ritual also shows that God's method 
of cleansing or washing the person is by the visible mode 
of sprinkling. 

7. Is it affirmed in the Mosaic ritual that the priest 
should bathe himself in water ? 

It is ; and it will be shown hereafter in these pages, 
that the v/ord rendered " bathe " means to icasli or to 
sprinkle, 

8. By what passages of Scripture is it proved that the 
priests were to be washed or cleansed by the sj)rinkling 
of w^ater upon them ? 

Exodus 29: 1-7: "And this is the thing that thou 
shalt do unto them, to hallow them to minister unto me 
in the priest's office, .... Aaron and his sons thou shalt 
bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congrega- 
tion, and shalt wash them with water ; . . . . then shalt 
thou take the anointing oil and pour it upon his head, 
and anoint him." Exodus 40:12-15: ''Thou shalt 
bring Aaron and his sons, and wash them with Avater. 
.... And thou shalt anoint them, .... that they may 
minister unto me in the priest's office, for their anointing 
shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout 
their generations." Numbers 8: 5-7: "And the^Lord 
spake unto Moses, saying : Take the Levites from among 
the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt 
thou do unto them to cleanse them : Bprinlxle icater of 
l^urifying upon themP 

9 What was the mode prescribed in the Mosaic law 
for the cleansing of the lepers ? 

They were to be sprinkled seven times. Leviticus 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 7 

14: 7: "And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to he 
cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pro- 
nounce him clean." 

10. What ceremony did the ritual of Moses require 
for the cleansing from a dead man ? 

Whoever touched a dead body was unclean under 
the law, and could only be washed or made clean by 
having A\^ater sprinkled upon him. ISTumbers 19 : 13-20 : 
" Whosoever toucheth (a dead body) .... because the 
water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall 
be unclean. And a clean person shall take hyssop, and 
dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and 
upon all the vessels, and Kpon the pe^^sons that were 

there, and upon him that touched one dead," etc 

" But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify 
himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the con- 
gregation ; . . . . the water of separation hath not been 
sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." 

11. Did these washings, v/hich the Apostle Paul called 
" divers baptisms," include the baptism of all the people ? 

Yes ; as all were sinners and needed cleansing, so 
all were required to be sprinkled, that they might 
thereby be washed or made clean. Hebrews 9:19: 
" For when 'Moses had spoken every precept to all the 
people according to the law^ he took the blood of calves 
and of goats, with w^ater, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, 
and sprinkled both the book, and all the peopled 

12. Were any persons baptized under the law by im- 
mersion ? 

There were sometimes the immersions of cups and 
other inanimate things, but never the immersion of a 
person. There is no jDassage of Scripture to show that 
any person was ever washed or cleansed by immersion, 
though the priests and all the people were baptized — 
that is, washed, or cleansed, by sprinkling. 

III. — Scriptural Washing. 

13. Of what is baptism symbolical ? 

Baptism is the outward symbol of the inward wash- 
ing or cleansing from impurity. • 



8 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

14. Is Scriptural washing in close analogy, as regards 
the mode, with the ordinary washings in every-day life ? 

Xo. The Scriptural washing of a person is always 
effected in connection with the act of sprinkling. But 
the ordinary washing of a person, and washing gen- 
erally, in daily life, are performed by rubbing, or similar 
operations. It is neither by simple immersion, nor 
sprinkling, that we wash ourselves, our clothing, or our 
furniture. The immersion of a person, or thing, under 
water is not of itself sufficient to cleanse. God's wisely 
established plan, however, is that in spiritual life sprink- 
ling is washing, through sprinkling there is cleansing. 

15. Do the dictionaries of our language show that to 
wash means to immerse ? 

Worcester (edition 1849) gives nine different mean- 
ings of the verb to wash, but no one of these is to 
immerse. Webster (unabridged edition, 1861) gives 
twelve different definitions, but in no one of these does 
he indicate that the word means simply to immerse. 
The second definition given by him is : " To wet ; to fall 
on and moisten, as the rain washes the flowers or plants,^'* 

16. Do the Scriptures teach that immersion is essential 
to washing ? 

]^o. The application of water to a part of the 
body significantly represented the perfect cleansing or 
purity of the whole man. It was a custom not only 
among the Hebrews, but also among the Greeks and 
Latins, to wash their hands in token of their innocence, 
and to show that they were pure from any imputed 
guilt. In Isaiah 6 : 7, it is shown that the entire pur- 
gation of the prophet from moral defilement Avas secured 
by simply applying a coal of fire to his lips only. " Lo," 
says the seraph, " this hath touched thy lips, and thy in- 
iquity is taken away, and thy sin is purged." Psalm 

26 : 6 : "I will wash my hands in innocency." Matthew 

27 : 44 : "Pilate .... took water and washed his hands 
before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood 
of this just man.'' 

17. By what passages of Scripture is it proved that 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 9 

the heart and flesh are made clean or purified through 
the act of sprinkling ? 

Ezekiel 36:25: "Then will I sprinkle clean wa- 
ter upon you, and ye shall be clean." Psalm 51 : 7: 
" Purge me with hyssop, (as the law required, Leviticus^ 
chapter 14, that is, take hyssop, and dip it in wa- 
ter, and sprinkle me,) and I shall be clean : wash me, 
(in this way,) and I shall be (spiritually) whiter than 
snow." Hebrews 9: 13 : "The blood of bulls and of 
goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling th^ unclean, 
saiictifieth to the purifying of the flesh." Hebrews 10 : 
22: "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science, and our bodies w^ashed (that is, sprinkled) with 
pure water." 

18. What authority have you for supposing that the 
word washed, in Hebrews 10: 22, should be sprinkled, 
and not immersed ? 

There is no passage in the Scriptures that teaches 
that to wash means to immerse. The Holy Spirit has 
not chosen to make immersion a symbol for the washing 
or cleansing of a person ; but, on the contrary, sprinkling 
is throughout the Bible the symbol of the cleansing and 
the blessing of the bodies and the souls of men. We 
need, therefore, the double baptism — having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies sprin- 
kled — that is, baptized — with pure water. 

19. What is meant by the bathing required in the pu- 
rification of the Jews ? 

The Hebrew word, which in some passages is ren- 
dered " bathe," means only to " wash," and is in many 
places in our English Bible now rendered vmsh. Bath- 
ing does not imply immersion, and may be performed 
without it, and is so performed by multitudes every day. 

IV. — Importance of Mosaic Baptism. 

20. In what consists the importance of Mosaic bap- 
tism ? 

The water baptism of the Mosaic ritual ought not 
1* 



10 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

to be undervalued by us, because of its identity with 
Christian bcq)tism, 

21. Wherein can this identity be recognized? 

Firstly, the import of baptism under both dispen- 
sations is co7iseoration. Secondly, the one grand idea 
pervading the whole system of revelation in the Old Tes- 
tament and in the ISTew, is the cleansing and renewing of 
man's depraved nature by the dispensation of God's 
Spirit, and this is symbolized in the system of water- 
lustrations, or cleansings, in both Testaments. 

22. Why is it that in the new dispensation there is 
but one baptism, whereas in the old there were " divers 
baptisms" ? 

The peculiar nature of the Levitical dispensation 
made its various baptisms indispensable ; the superior 
simplicity of the oieio admitted of their being condensed 
into one, and that one to occupy the initiatory place of 
abolished circumcision. 

23. Were any others except the Jews baptized under 
the Mosaic ritual ? 

The Mosaic ritual was designed especially for tlie 
Jews alone, but during the interval of four hundred years 
between the Old Testament and the Xew, the Jewish 
rabbins are supposed to have invented the baptism of 
converts to the faith. 

24. When a convert was received into the Jewish 
Church, to whom were the sign and seal of baptism 
applied ? 

If the convert were the head of a family, he and 
all his family, even to the children of eight days old, 
were proper subjects for baptism. 

25. What word was generally used to express tliis in- 
itiatory rite ? 

The Greek word haptizo became the popular term ; 
and, because of its frequent use in this connection, it 
came to be applied vernacularly to express any sacred 
ablution. 



A Cx^TECHIS^I O^ BAFTISM. 11 



V. — MsAis^i^s'a OF THE Geeek Wokd Baptizo. 

26. What is the meaning of the Greek word haptizo ? 
It has a variety of meanings, like almost every other 

word in the Greek and other languages. 

27. Do words have certam fixed significations? 

STo. V/ords are changeable in their significations. 
Words in frequent use in Shakespeare's writings are no^v 
unintelligible without a dictionary. Many of the house- 
hold phrases of a hundred years ago are now obsolete. 
Words fade. They assume new shades of meaning. 
They die out. The same word is now used by difierent 
persons with various and sometimes opposite significa- 
tions. No word has a fixed, arbitrary meaning. We 
use words as signs to express ideas, and our wants are 
so great that we must sometimes use old words in a nevv" 
sense. In many instances, the best-chosen word but 
j)oorly expresses the idea of the thinker. Thoughts v/ill 
sometimes weave a new garment for themselves, and 
there is then a new creation in the world of words. 
Hence new editions of our dictionaries are needed sev- 
eral times in a lifetime. 

28. Is there any v/ord in the "Greek language that 
means vv^liat baptism means in the English ? 

ISTo ; it was not possible there could be such a 
word. By baptism we mean a Christian ordinance^ in 
the observance of which persons are initiated into the 
Christian Church. The word baptizo originally had no 
sort of ecclesiastical sense. There was among the 
Greeks no such ordinance or ceremony, and therefore 
they had no need of a word to mean that which did not 
exist. They v^ere no more likely to have a word in that 
language that meant baptism, than a word that meant 
photograph, or telegraph, or railroad, or steam-engine, 
or any thing unknown among them. A language might 
possess, in the grandest luxuriance, all the words that a 
heathen nation wants, and yet its vocabulary be barren 
of those terms which a Christian literature needs. 



12 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

29. Why was the Greek word haptizo chosen to ex- 
press the idea of baptism ? 

That word came the nearest to what we mean by 
baptism of any in the Greek. It was necessary, there- 
fore, to choose that word, or, perhaps, coin one. The 
former alternative was preferred. 

30. How many difierent significations has the word 
hcqytizo ? 

In the writings of Greek authors, the verb bap- 
tize, or the noun baptism, has been used with at least 
forty-seven different shades of meaning. It is unimport- 
ant to inquire what was the radical or primary meaning 
of the word. The point for us to consider is, in what 
sense did it come to be popularly used and to be popu- 
larly understood ? 

VI. — Classical Meaxixg or the Greek Woed 
Baptizo. 

31. How do you ascertain the classical meaning of the 
word hcq:>tizo ? 

By the best lexicons of the Greek language. 

32. What are some of its significations as given in the 
best Greek lexicons ? 

ScHREVELius, a great master of the Greek language, 
gives these definitions of baptizo : '' To immerse, to 
wash, to sprinkle, to moisten, to wet." 

Scapula and Hedekicus give the same definitions. 

ScHLEusxER, in his Lexicon of the Xew Testament, 
a work of the highest authority, defines baptizo as 
follows: "1. To immerse in water; 2. To wash, or 
sprinkle, or cleanse Avith water ; 3. To baptize ; 4. To 
pour out largely." 

Cole gives these definitions : " To baptize, to wash, 
to sprinkle." 

Passow defines it : " To immerse, to wash, to sprinkle." 

SuiDAS defines it : " To immerse, to moisten, to sprin- 
kle, to wash, to cleanse." 

Dwight's definitions are : " To tinge, stain, dye, or 
color," 



1 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 13 

Geove defines it : " To dip, plunge, immerse, wash, 
wet, moisten, stain, sprinkle, steep, imbue, dye, color." 

The learned Gases, a member of the Greek Church, 
whose Lexicon of Ancient Greek is generally used by 
the modern Greeks, gives these definitions of haptizo: 
" To wet or moisten, to wash, to draw water." 

The lexicons agree in giving %i:ia8h as the most 
prominent meaning of baptizo. If one aflJrms that he 
washed himself, we do not suppose him to mean that he 
immersed himself. 

33. Is there any other way of ascertaining the clas- 
sical meaning of baptizo ? 

Yes, by consulting the Greek authors, and noticing 
the connection in which the word stands, and the sense 
in which it was there obviously used. 

34. With what significations did the Greek writers 
use the word baptizo ? 

Sometimes meaning one thing, and at other times 
something else, just as we use words. It was used both 
in the sense of dipping or immersion, and sprinkling or 
pouring ; but it was never used by them in the sense of 
dipping or immersion as a Christian rite. 

35. Did the Greek writers use the word baptizo when 
it could not possibly mean to immerse ? 

Yes, they sometimes used it in the sense of sprink- 
ling, and when they meant nothing else. In the Greek 
writers we read of " baptizing the grass with dew ;" — 
" baptizing a garment with needlework ;" — " baptizing a 
wall with arrows ;" — " baptizing the head Avith perfume ;" 
— " baptizing the sea with the blood of a mouse." Plu- 
tarch, writing on the education of children, compares, 
by the Greek word for baptize, his labors to those of a 
gardener sprinkling or pouring loater on his plants. lu 
these places, to baptize could not possibly have meant to 
immerse, 

VII. — Scriptural Meaniij^g of the Word Baptizo. 

36. How do you find the Scripture meaning oi haptizo ? 
By examining the connection in which the word stands, 

its obvious meaning may be ascertained. 



14 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

37. What version do you employ for this purpose ? 
The Greek translation of the Old Testament. This 

is important, because it will determine the sense in 
which the Hellenistic Jews understood the word haptizo^ 
and how it was applied by them in their ceremonial in- 
stitutions. The Septuagint version was made by the 
Jews themselves, about two hundred and seventy-seven 
years before the Christian era, and was in use among 
those of that nation who spoke the Greek language at 
the time of our Lord's coming. To this translation the 
SSTew Testament writers repeatedly refer, and from it 
they frequently quote, employhig its very language in 
the same sense in their own inspired compositions. Here 
Ave may look for the ecclesiastical meaning of the word 
baptizo. 

38. Is there any passage of Scripture where it is evi- 
dent that baptism must necessarily mean immersion ? 

There is no passage in the Bible where the obvi- 
ous meaning of baptism is immersion, and may not be 
sprinkling or pouring. 

39. Is there any Scripture to show that to baptize ne- 
cessarily means to sprinkle or pour upon, and can not pos- 
sibly mean to immerse ? 

Yes, there are many passages that clearly show that 
baptism was frequently performed when there could 
not possibly have been immersion. 

40. How do you prove that ? 
By the following considerations : 

1. In Leviticus 14 : 4-6, the priest is required to 
take for the cleansing of the leper two birds, and to kill 
one of them, and preserve the blood in a vessel. He is 
then to haptize (it is " dip " in the English translation, 
but it is baptize in the Greek) the living bird, and the 
cedar-wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, with the 
blood of the dead bird. It is manifestly impossible that 
this baptism could have been by immersion. 

2. In 2 Kings 5 : 14, Elislia told Xaaman to go 
wash seven times in (or at) Jordan, and he went and 
baptized (it is " dipped " in the English version, but bap- 



« 



A CATECHISK OF BAPTISM. 15 

tized in the Greek) himself seven times. It is evident 
that he must have sprinkled himself seven times. ISTaa- 
man was a leper. The leprosy was incurable by human 
means. God had ^orovided a way by which a cure might 
surely be effected. There was no other way but God's 
v/ay. That way is defined in Leviticus 14 : 7 : ''And 
he shall sprinlde upon him that is to be cleansed from 
the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him. clean." 
Through this sprinkling there was to be cleansing. ]^aa- 
man, who did not belong to Israel, heard of the cures 
effected through God's appointment, and went to the 
prophet. What did the prophet tell him ? As a faith- 
ful prophet he must not make a law of his own, but must 
tell him to keep God's law. " Go and wash — that is, 
sprinkle — seven times." That was what the ritual of 
Moses required. In God's law sprinkling is vv^ashing. 
Elisha must have told him to sprinkle seven times, for 
the law required it. There was no reason v/hy he should 
tell him any thing different from that. N'aaman Vv^ent 
and baptized himself seven times — that is, he sprinkled 
himself seven times. He did not immerse himself. I^o 
law required him to be immersed. To immerse would 
not be following the instructions given. To immerse 
would not cleanse him of the leprosy. Immersion is not 
symbolical of cleansing. He must have sprinkled him- 
self seven times, for he loas made clean — his flesh became 
as the flesh of a little child. He would never have been 
cleansed by going contrary to the law, but in its observ- 
ance he secured the blessing. By comparing Scripture 
with Scripture, and allowing the Holy Spirit to be his 
own interpreter, it is evident that the baptism of ISTaa- 
man could not have been by immersion, and must have 
been by sprinkling. 

3. In Daniel 4 : 33, ll^ebuchadnezzar, it is said, '' was 
driven from men — and was 'baptized (it is translated 
" wet " in the English version, but it is baptized in the 
Greek) with the dew of heaven." It is manifestly impos- 
sible that his baptism with dew could have been by im- 
mersion. 



16 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

4. In Mark 7 : 4, it is stated that the Pharisees observe 
" the baptisms (it is " washings " in the English transla 
tion, but baptisms in the Greek) of cups and pots, brazen 
vessels, and tables." That the mode of baptism here 
was sprinkling will be apparent if we refer to the 
Levitieal rite to which they allude. In Xumbers 19:18, 
the ritual requires that " a clean person shall take hyssop 
and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, ' 
and upon all the vessels." In these " baptisms " there 
could not have been immersion. 

5. Throughout the ISTew Testament the Greek word 
baptizo, is used in the sense of sprinkling, or pouring on. 
In Matthew 3 : 2, John foretold that Jesus would "bap- 
tize with the Holy Ghost," and Peter expressly recog- 
nizes the fulfillment of the promise in Acts 11 : 15, when 
" the Holy Ghost fell on them." This baptism could 
not have been by immersion. 

VIII. — Affusiox. 

41. What is affusion ? 

The act of sprinkling, or pouring upon. 

42. What is the difference between sprinkling and 
pouring ? 

They are substantially one. In both acts there is the 
application of the element to the person. To sprinkle 
is to scatter or disperse in small particles or drops. In 
pouring, the act is the same in form, but the element is 
shed forth more copiously. 

43. What is immersion ? 

The act of putting into a fluid below the surface ; dip- 
ping ; plunging ; overwhelming. 

44. What is the difference between affusion and im- 
mersion ? 

In affusion the element descends upon the subject; in 
immersion the subject is plunged into the element. 

IX. — The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 

45. In what relation does the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit stand to water baptism ? 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 17 

The baptism of the Holy Sj^irit is the real and 
essential baptism; that of water is the symbolical^ or 
Jlgurative. 

46. Wherein do they differ ? 

In the real baptism the administrator is God ; the 
element is his Holy Spirit ; and the subject is the indi- 
vidual. In the symbolical baptism the administrator is 
God's minister ; the element is water ; and the subject 
is the human person. 

47. Which is the more important ? 

The real baptism is more important than its symbolical 
representation. The application of the Spirit is essential 
to salvation. Our Lord says, John 3:5:" Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God." As if he had said : " Except a 
man be born (not only) of water, (which, as the mer^ 
emblem, is the less important, but also) of the Spirit, he 
can not enter into the kingdom of God." 

48. Are the terms used to denote the baptism of the 
Spirit figurative ? 

No. When God baptizes with his Spirit the thing is 
real^ and the term is literal. We are not to suppose that 
because the term employed was spiritual^ it was there- 
fore ^^i^ra^/?;^. 

49. In what mode is the baptism of the Spirit always 
represented as being performed ? 

The baptism of the Spirit, in his renovating and 
sanctifying operation, is always expressed under the con- 
ception of its descent upon the subject. When there is 
the operation of the Spirit for other purposes, that is 
never called baptism. 

50. What Scripture proofs can you give to show both 
the sanctifying descent of the Spirit and its representa- 
tion by the symbol of water affusion ? 

Isaiah 44 : 3 : "I will pour water upon him that is 
thirsty ; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my 
blessing upon thine offspring." Beautiful emblem ! " I 
SYWlpour water — Iioill j^our my Spirit P 

Ezekiel 36 : 25-27: " Then will I sprinkle clean water 



18 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from all your nltliiness, 
and from all your idols will I cleanse you ; . . . . and 
I will put my Spirit witliin you." Plere also the Spirit's 
influences are associated v/ith the sprinkling of Avater. 

Psalm 72 : 6 : " He (Messiah) shall come down like 
rain upon the mown grass." Hosea 10 : 12 : "Seek the 
Lord till he come and rain righteousness upon you." 
Hosea 14 : 5 : "I will be as the dew unto Israel." Here 
the refreshing influences of the real baptism are repre- 
sented by a metaphor taken iv om. the falli/ig of dew and 
of rain, 

51. Is the symbolism between the Spirit and the 
w^ater taught, under the new dispensation, as under the 
old? 

Yes. Only it is more definitely developed in the new, 
under the name and form of the double baptism. Mat- 
thew 3 : 11: "I indeed baptize you with water, but he 
shall baptize you Avith the Holy Ghost." Luke 3 : 16 : " I 
indeed baptize you with water ; but one mightier than I 
cometh ; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and 
Avith fire." John 1 : 33 : "He that sent me to baptize 
with water, the same said unto me : Upon whom thou 
shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the 
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." 

52. By what passages of Scripture does it appear that 
in the baptism of the Spirit there is no immersion, but 
that the element descends upon the subject ? 

Proverbs 1 : 23: "I will pour out m.y Spirit unto 
you." 

Matthew 3 : 16 : "He saw the Spirit of God de- 
scending like a dove, and lighting upon him." Here was 
baptism, but not immersion. He was not plunged into 
the Spirit. 

Acts 2:3:" There appeared unto them cloven tongues 
like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." There 
was no immersion here. A sound filled the house, and 
Jie baptism of fire sat upon them. 

Acts 2 : 16, 17, 38: "But this is that which was 
spoken by the prophet Joel: I v/ill pour out of my 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 19 

Spirit." This outpouring is called baptism. " Then 
Peter said : Repent, and be baptized every one of you : 
and ye shall 7'eceive the gift of the Holy Ghost." This 
could not have been immersion. One could not be said 
to receive an element in which he was immersed. More- 
over, it is said, " the gift of the Holy Ghost was jjoicred 
out:' 

Acts 10: 44-47: "The Holy Ghost fell on all them 
which heard the word. . . . On the Gentiles also w^as 
poured out the gift ofthe Holy Ghost. . . . Then answered 
Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not 
be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost ?" As 
they had received the real baptism, so should they receive 
the symbolical baptism. 

Acts 11 : 15, 16 : " And as I began to speak, the Holy 
Gho^ifell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then re- 
membered I the word (not of John, but) of the Lord, 
how that he said : John indeed baptized v/ith water ; 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Thus 
Peter pronounces the outpouring and the falling of the 
Holy Spirit to be baptism. 

63. Yfhat important point is confirmed by the argu- 
ment drawn from the baptism of the Spirit ? 

The biblical, ritual use of the w^ord baptize is es- 
tablished. Whatever may have been its primary mean- 
ing, we learn its meaning when used in a Christian sense. 
" The Bible is its ov/n dictionary. The Spirit is his own 
interpreter." The thing has been made so visible that 
we may see it. God himself has given a definition of the 
word in question. " He poured out upon his Son, visibly 
and really — it was pouring, and not immersion, and he 
called it haptism. The Holy Ghost descended upon the 
disciples, and sat %ipon them, and this he calls baptism, 
" On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the 
Holy Ghost," and this affusion he calls l apt ism. 

54. If the real and essential baptism is performed by 
affusion, ought not the symbolical and figurative baptism 
to be performed by the same mode ? 

The mode of the former should in all fairness determine 



20 A cATECHis:ir of baptism. 

the mode of the latter. The symbolical act should be a 
true representation of the real thing. If the form of a 
symbol does not express the reality it is not really a 
symbol. The design of a symbol is to present to the 
mind the idea of an unseen reality. We should make 
all things according to the pattern showed to us in the 
mount. Behold that pattern showed to thee when God 
himself baptized ! See that pattern where at Pentecost 
he baptized his disciples ! It was by affusion, and not 
by immersion, that blessed work was done. And if thus 
it is that God baptizeth us, is not this the way in which 
his ministers should baptize his j)eople ? 

X. — John's Baptis:^. 

55. What was John's baptism ? 

An ordinance performed by John, independent of 
the regular services of the synagogue of the Jews, and 
intended to prepare them, in connection with repentance, 
for the aftercoming of Christ. 

56. Why was John's bajDtism called the baptism of 
repentance ? 

He was specially commissioned to preach repent- 
ance, and baptize all who came to him with repentance, 
confessing their sins. 

57. Was John's baptism performed under the Christ- 
ian dispensation ? 

'No, The Christian dispensation was not inaugu- 
rated when John preached and baptized. This dispen- 
sation did not commence until after Christ had died, 
and risen again. John's work w^as finished and his life 
ended before the Jewish system Avas discarded. John 
never, in his preaching, spoke of the new dispensation as 
estabUshed already, but as being '' at hand." 

58. Was John's Ibaptism Christian baptism? 

No. John had died several years before Christian 
baptism was instituted. Christian baptism is a ceremo- 
nial ordinance in which men are initiated into the Church 
of Christ. John never received any person into the 



< 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 21 

Christian Church. The persons baptized by John siill 
remained members of the Jewish church, and were as 
much the subjects of Christian baptism afterward, as if 
they had never been baptized. Christian baptism must 
be administered in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. John baptized upon the 
confession of sin, before conversion, and without faith. 
Many of those baptized by John had never heard of a 
Holy Ghost, nor had they been baptized in the name of 
the Lord Jesus ; they were therefore again baptized with 
Christian baptism. See Acts 19 : 1-6. That John's bap- 
tism was not Christian baptism has been admitted by a 
distinguished Baptist divine, (Rev. Robert Hall.) He 
says : " A Christian ordinance, not founded on the au- 
thority of Christ, not the effect but the means of his 
manifestation, and first executed by one who knew him 
not, is an incomprehensible mysteryP 

59. In what locality did John preach and baptize ? 

It is said that he baptized " in Jordan," and again, " in 
the river of Jordan." The preposition here rendered 
"in" has, like other words, a variety of meanings, 
and it means " at," or " near to," or " by," as much as it 
means " in." Those passages that indicate the scene of 
John's labors do not affirm any thing more than that 
John preached and baptized in that part of the coun- 
try lying " near to" the Jordan. 

60. Is similar phraseology employed in the present 
day without implying the idea of immersion ? 

It is not unusual to hear persons speak of having 
been in a certain river, when they do not design to affirm 
that they were in the waters thereof. There is a locality 
in Nova Scotia called '' River John." A Wesleyan min- 
ister is annually appointed to labor in River John. It 
"is not only the river itself that bears that name but the 
country lying in the vicinity of that river. That minister 
preaches and baptizes in River John, but baptizing in 
River John does not mean immersion, for his mode of 
baptism is sprinkling. It is as incorrect to suppose that 
he immerses any one, because he baptizes in River John, 



22 A CATECHISM OF BAPTIS.M. 

as it is to suj^pose that John the Forerunner of Christ 
immersed any one because he baptized in the river Jor- 
dan. The Jordan had several banks within banks, and 
the whole country lying Trithin these outer banks Tvas 
called "the river Jordan;" hence a person could be in 
the river Jordan, so called, and on dry ground at the 
same time. John could therefore baj^tize in Jordan and 
not enter the water of the stream. 

61. How is it proved by the Scriptures that the 
phrase " in the river of Jordan " does not mean in the 
water of Jordan ? 

By passages which are more definite than those which 
simply say in the river Jordan. For John might have 
been baptizing several miles away from the waters of 
Jordan, and still it might have been said he was baptiz- 
ing in, that is, near to, the river of Jordan. Moreover, 
it is never said he baptized vi icater^ but always icith 
water. 

In Mark 1 : 4, it i> said, " John did baptize ia the icil' 
derness^'''' and yet the following verse says it was " in the 
river of Jordan." This apparent contradiction is easily 
explained by showing that he baptized in a wilderness 
which was near to the river of Jordan. It is plainly 
affirmed that he baptized "in the wilderness." That 
could not therefore have meant immersion in the water of 
Jordan. 

In John 1 : 26-28, it is said : " John answered them, 
saying, I baptize icith icater : but there standeth one 
among you whom ye know not; .... these things were 
done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan ^ichere John icas bajytiz- 
ing?"^ Bethabara, where John gave his testimony concern- 
ing Christ, and where he was baptizing, was not in Jor- 
dan, but heyondit. This Bethabara was at one time call- 
ed Bethany. There was a Bethany about two miles from 
Jerusalem ; and there was another Bethany, here called 
Bethabara, in the tribe of Beuben, east of Jordan, and 
yet near to it. This was where John baptized — not in 
the water of the Jordan, but beyond it. 

John 10 : 40 : And Jesus " went away again beyond Jor^ 



A CATECHIS:VI OF BAPTISM. 23 

da7i J into the place IV here John at first baptized^ and there 
he abode." When it is affirmed elsewhere that John at 
first baptized in Jordan it is evident that it was not by 
immersion in the water of Jordan, but yiear to that river, 
as the Greek preposition indicates, and yet '' beyond 
Jordan," as is plainly declared. 

That to be " in Jordan " does not necessarily mean to 
be " in the water," is evident from Joshua 3:8:" When 
ye shall come to the brink of the water of Jordan ye shall 
stand still in Jordan." Hence " in Jordan " and " in the 
water " are by no means synonymous terms. 

The rendering of the passages in our version referring 
to John's baptism is contradictory and inexplicable, if 
we regard some of them as meaning immersion in the 
water of Jordan. Luke says, John preached and bap- 
tized in '* all the country about Jordan." Another evan- 
gelist says, he baptized "beyond Jordan." Another 
locates him " in the wilderness." And yet they say it 
was in Jordan. There is only one way of reconciling 
this apparent contradiction, and that is by substituting 
for the preposition " in " the words " near to," which is 
the meaning of the Greek as much as " in " is. Then the 
narratives will all agree in simply locating the scene of 
John's labors in that part of the country lying in the 
vicinity of the Jordan. Every difficulty will then be 
removed ; the whole record will then be plain, probable, 
natural, consistent, and reasonable. If John was accus- 
tomed to immerse in the water of Jordan, as some 
affirm, how pointless and meaningless the passage which 
says he went to ^non because there was much water 
there ! That would be leaving plenty of w^ater, and 
going to less. But if we regard John as an itinerant, 
going about doing good, we wonder not that he should 
be glad to locate for a time, with his followers, at a place 
of " many springs," as JEnon was, and sometimes along 
the shores of Jordan's stream, not merely because he 
needed water to baptize with, but because, for other 
purposes, such multitudes as accompanied him would 
require an abundant supply of water. 



24 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 



XI. — The Mode of John's Baptism. 

62. Did John baptize by immersion ? 
There is no passage in the Bible vrhich proves that 

John immersed. 

63. Why do immersionists suppose that John im- 
mersed ? 

Gi-eat stress is laid upon certain prepositions, " in," 
and "into," and "out of," and they might just as cor- 
rectly have been rendered respectively, "near to," and 
"to," and "from," and the translation would thereby 
have been more definite and correct. It is also aiiirmed 
that going down into and coming up out of the water 
imply immersion. The logic which teaches that immer- 
sion inevitably follows from going into and coming out of 
tlie water, appears rather defective to most persons. In 
their judgment it is difficult to establish the point, that 
having been in the water implies having been under it ; 
but nevertheless to some there appears no flaw in the 
argument, and upon this assumption a theory is built. 

64. Does our English translation of the Scriptures, as 
it now reads, imply immersion ? 

No. One may baptize in a river, and not immerse. 
One may go down into the water, and not be immersed. 
One may come up out of the water without having been 
under it. One may drive his horse down into the 
water, and up out of the water, and not have him im- 
mersed. Going down into the water, and coming up out 
of it, do not imply going under it. The Avord of God 
does not say that John immersed. " He baptized with 
water," is the repeated testimony of God's Avord ; and 
haptiam loith water ^neans affusion and not immersion. 
John tells us himself, that he was to be followed by Him 
who was to ^'-sprinkle all nations^'' and that his own 
baptism was but the type of His great outpouring of the 
Spirit and the fire. 

XII. — Christ's Baptism. 

65. With w^hat baptism was our Lord baptized ? 

It was not John's baptism, for he had no need of 



I 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 25 

repentance, which that baptism implied. It was not 
Christian baptism, for that was not instituted until sev- 
eral years after he had been baptized. The nature of the 
case makes it impossible that he could be baptized in his 
own name ; therefore he could not receive Christian 
baptism. Christian baptism is a symbol of cleansing 
from inv/ard impurity ; and he had no such impurity 
from which to be cleansed. He was baptized " to fulfill 
all righteousness ;" that is, all the requirements of the 
law. He came among men that he might become a 
minister of his gospel, and our Great High Priest, and 
he had to fulfill all the requirements of the law appertain- 
ing to those ofiices. 

66. What did the law require of our Lord as a minis- 
ter and a priest ? 

The Mosaic ritual required that he would not begin to 
preach until he should be thirty years of age, and not 
then without being sprinkled with water. Numbers 8 : 
5-7 : "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the 
Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse 
them. And tkus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them : 
Sprinkle loater of purifying upon themP 

67. How does it appear that these laws applied to 
Jesus ? 

They were parts of the established ritual, and were 
binding upon every one v/ho entered upon the ofiice of 
the ministry and the priesthood, from Aaron do\vn to 
Christ. 

68. Might not Christ be exempt from these laws, inas- 
much as he was holy ? 

No. He made himself subject to his own laws. He 
was holy because he kept every law faithfully. He could 
not preach until he was thirty years old, because he must 
keep the law. He could not be our faithful High Priest 
unless he kept the law. " Think not," says he, " that I 
am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not 
come to destroy, but to fulfill." 

69. Did the law require that Jesus should be immersed, 
or that he should be sprinkled ? 

2 



26 A CATECHISil OF BAPTis:xr. 

There Avas no law that required him to be immersed. 
There is no evidence in the Scriptures to show that he 
was ever immersed. The law required him to he sprinkled 
before entering on his ministry. If he was not so 
sprinkled he violated the law, and could not be a priest. 
He must liave been sprinkled by John, for it is said he 
was " baptized to fulfill all righteousness." The law is 
explicit : " Thus shalt thou do unto them, (the priests :) 
Uprinkle water of purifying upon them." 

TO. Is Christ our example in baptism ? 

Xo. The baptism of Christ was an official act. By- 
it he was inducted into the priesthood at the age of 
thirty years. We should follow Christ in moral con- 
duct, but not in his official acts. We are not to follow 
Christ in all things. He was a preacher; but all are not 
to follow Christ in that office. He never married ; all 
are not to follow Christ in that particular. Be was cir- 
cumcised ; we need not follow Christ in that ordinance. 
To follow Christ in baptism would be to follow him into 
a priestly office. If he were our example in baptism, 
none should be baptized until the age of thirty years, 
and his example would not therefore be worthy of all 
imitation. K he were an example in baptism, he failed 
to be an example to the age in which he lived, for Jesus 
was not baptized, until about the close of John's minis- 
try, and until after " all the people were baptized." 
(Luke 3 : 21.) There is no proof in the Scriptures, direct 
or indirect, that our Sa^dour was baptized as an example 
for us. Christ never made a profession of faith : such a 
profession was with him imnecessary and impossible, since 
he himself is the only Being in whom faith can be exercis- 
ed unto salvation. How, then, could he have been our ex- 
ample in baptism ? How can we " follow our Saviour " 
in this resj^ect ? 

XIII. — Christian Baptisat. 

71. Wliat is Christian baptism? 

Baptism as a Christian ordinance is the application of 
pure water to a proper subject, by a lawful administrator, 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 27 

in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost. 

72. Are these conditions essential ? 

The water should be piire^ as it is intended to symbol- 
ize the inward purifying of the rea^ baptism of the Spirit. 
If the water be not pure, it fails to be a real symbol. The 
commission was given to ministers of the Gospel alone 
to baptize, subject to certain conditions. No others 
have a right to perform this office. It must be done in 
the name of the Sacred Trinity. Matthew 29 : 19 : " Go 
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." Heb. 10:22: "Having our hearts sprinkled 
from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (that 
is, sprinkled) with pure water." 

73. When was Christian baptism instituted? 

It was instituted by our Lord after his resurrection, 
and before his ascension, when he gave the commission to 
go and baptize all nations. 

74. What is its sacramental import ? 

It is the visible act by which a person is initiated into 
the visible Church of Christ ; and it is a sign and seal 
of the covenant of grace. 

75. Why is it said to be a sign ? 

It holds out to our view the provisions and promises 
of the covenant of grace. It is a most appropriate sym- 
bol of that influence by which the soul is cleansed from 
moral defilement. It is an acknowledgment of moral 
pollution ; and also a recognition of God's tenderness, 
and of the efficacy of the blood of Christ to cleanse, and 
of the power of the Spirit to regenerate. 

76. Why is it said to be a seal ? 

It is a visible pledge on the part of God that he will 
faithfully keep all his covenant engagements. Thus he 
binds himself by a perpetual ceremony. And when we 
look upon this visible pledge of his fidelity, our faith 
hears breathed through it, as through the trumpet of 
jubilee : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from 



28 



A CATECHISil OF BAPTISM. 



rJlyoiir idols, T\'ill I cleanse you. A new heart also will 
I give yon. And I v/ill put ray spirit within you, and 
cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my 
judgments, and do them." (Ezek. 36 : 25.) 

XIV. — The Subjects of Cheistiaist Baptism. 

77. Who are proj^er subjects of Christian baptism ? 

It is commanded that all nations — all the world — 
every creature, should be baptized. The minister of 
Christ is commissioned to baptize all. All should be 
baptized, and made disciples of Christ, and trained from 
childhood in the way that they should go. Matthew 
28 : 19, 20 : " Go ye and teach (that is, "tnalce disciples of, 
as it reads in the margin) all nations : (first by) baptizing 
them (into the faith, and then) teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you." 

78. Upon what conditions may unbaptized adults re- 
ceive Christian baptism ? 

By becoming like little children. Children are the 
Keio Testament standard. It is not he who believes 
the doctrines of any particular church or creed that shall 
be saved, but he that becomes like a little child. Little 
children are made partakers of grace and heirs of 
heaven, through the atonement of Christ. Unbaptized 
and unrenewed adults can only attain unto like ^jrecious 
grace and heirship through faith in Christ. When they 
exercise faith they are made free from condemnation, as 
children are, and being thus like unto them, they are 
proper subjects for baptism. Mark 10 : 14-lG : " Sufier 
the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: 
for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto 
you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as 
a little child he shall not enter therein." This does not 
refer to children that are old enough to sin, for all such 
do actually become transgressors, and our Lord would 
not make sinning children a Christian standard. "He 
took them up in his arms^'' and must have set them down 
upon his knee, for he put both " hands upon tJiem, and 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 29 

blessed them." Ye must become like little, misimiing 
cliiklren — humble, teachable, trustful. Luke 18 : 15-17 : 
" And they brought unto him also infants, that he would 
touch them. Jesus said. Of such is the kingdom of God. 
Verily I say unto you, Yvdiosoever shall not receiv^e the 
kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter 
therein." 

79. Upon what ground is it affirmed by some that 
children should not be baptized ? 

It is said that children must not be baptized because 
they can not have faith. But faith is not required of 
them, for of this they are incapable. If this plea Avere 
valid it Vv^ould shut infants out of heaven. Our Lord 
has positively declared : " He that believeth not shall 
be damned." Abraham received the initiatory rite, ad- 
mitting him into the Church of God, because he had 
faith, Isaac was admitted to the same privilege w^hen 
lie was eight days old, without faith, for of this he was 
incapable. 

It is also urged that infants ought not to be baptized, 
because they can not consent to the covenant of which it 
is the seal. But it is universally acknowdedged in the 
transactions of daily life, that children are bound by the 
acts of their jDarents. It is done in various pecuniary 
transactions, in acts of civil legislation, and in the con- 
veyance of real estate. Thus men bind themselves, their 
heirs, and assigns, forever. The sacred word shows 
that not only parents, but their little ones^ may enter into 
covenant vrith God. Dent. 29: 10-12: "- Ye stand this 
day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains 
of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all 
the men of Israel, your Utile ones^ your wives, and tijy 
stranger that is in thy camp :' that thou shouldst ente 
into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into l-i 
oath, whicli the Lord thy God maketh with thee this 
day." 

80. What evidence can be adduced to show that in- 
fants sliould be baptized ? 

1. Our Lord has commanded that all should he baptized 



30 A catechis:m of baptism. 

and cliildren form a part of the whole. This command 
Avas given by one who was a Jew, and who understood 
all their laws and customs. When Gentiles had been 
proselyted and embraced the Jewish religion, the laws 
and customs of the Jews required that they should be 
circumcised, including children down to the age of eight 
days. And now that a nevr initiatory rite is substituted 
for circumcision, and a command given, '^ Go and discij^le 
or proselyte all^ and baptize them," they must have 
understood it to include children. If Jesus had said, 
" Go, make disciples of, or proselyte all, and circumcise 
them," would the apostles have doubted whether children 
were to be circumcised ? And when baptism is made 
the sign instead of circumcision, why should any doubt 
whether children are to be baptized ? If our Lord did 
not wish infants to be baptized, existing circumstances 
made it necessary that he should expressly forbid it, and 
he would have done so, openly and definitely. 

2. Man's wisdom suggests that infants should not be 
baptized because they can not understand the design of 
the rite, or make any profession of their faith. But man's 
wisdom is not as God's wisdom. God in his wisdom 
provided that the sons of Jews and proselytes should be 
circumcised when eight days old, and when they knew 
not the intent and meaning of the ordinance. The an- 
alogy must have been very clear to the first Christians, 
and to the Apostles, who were themselves Jews. 

3. As Jewish proselytes were baptized in the time of 
Christ, and long previous thereto, and as it was univer- 
sally known that infonts eight days old were baptized, as 
wx'll as adults, would it not he natural^ as there was no 
prohibition of the baptism of infants, that the Apostles 
should continue this practice ? Our Lord, with a full 
knowledge of these facts, says. Go, and make disciples 
of all^ and baptize theni^ and he gave them no instruc- 
tion to act differently from the prevailing custom. Surely 
if he had designed them to adopt a plan so peculiar and 
novel, as the exclusion of infants would be, he would 
have said so. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 31 

4. As our Lord has commanded that all should be 
baptized, infants should receive that ordinance, because 
the only period in life in which it is possible that this 
command can be unwersally obeyed is in early infancy. 
If baptism be denied to little children, then, it is inevit- 
able that of those who are " forbid " thus to come to 
Christ, a large majority, perhaps more than seventy-five 
persons out of every hundred will pass through life, and 
go down to the grave, forever unbaptized. 

5. Infants should be baptized because of the hni^ortance 
of loater baptism. In John 3 : 5, it is said : " Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter 
into the kingdom of God." God in his wisdom has not 
only made water baptism important, and required it of 
all, but has also indicated the period in which it should 
be administered to the subject, namely, in early infancy. 
Those parents who do not suffer little children thus to 
come to Christ, and those teachers who forbid them thus 
to come, assume the awful responsibility of rejecting 
the only possible period in which all can be " born of 
water," and of sanctioning a system the tendency of 
which is to send the great majority unbaptized into 
eternity. 

6. Persons should be baptized in infancy because God 
has fixed the order in which this should be done. The 
command says, " Go ye and make disciples of all," by, 

first., " baptizing them," (Matt. 28 : 19 ;) and then, after 
they are baptized, "teaching them (verse 20) to observe 
all things." First^ baptize them as soon as they can be 
baptized, and then teach them as soon as they can be 
taught. It is sometimes affirmed that children should be 
left to grow up to mature years, and choose for them- 
selves respecting these things. Such teaching is un- 
scripturai, unphilosophical, inconsistent, mischievous, and 
most perilous. The guardianship of childhood involves 
the responsibility of training up children in the way they 
should go, irrespective of any consent or choice on their 
part ; and the Head of the Church says, do this by first 
baptizing them, and then teaching them. 



32 A catechism: of baptism. 

7. God has in his Church, from the beginning, includ 
ed the children in his covenant with the parents, and 
made them members of his Chm^ch. Gen. 17: 7: "I 
will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy 
seed after thee." In speaking to IN^oah, God said. 
Gen. 7:1:" Come thou and all thy house into the ark, 
for thee have I seen righteous." Thee have I seen right- 
eous ; therefore, come, not only thou, but all thy house. 
Though many persons regard as foolishness the recogni- 
tion of infants in connection with any religious rite or 
obligation, because of their want of comprehension, yet 
what is the foolishness of men is the wisdom of God. 
In God's plan infants have never been overlooked, or 
unprovided for. When God orders the assembling of the 
people, the children are not excluded because they do 
not understand. He says : "Assemble the elders, gather 
the children, and those that suck the breasts." (Joel 2:16.) 
Infants have ever been objects of his tenderest solici- 
tude. He made them heirs of heaven, until they rebel 
by actucd trccnsgression. The great Shepherd has never 
forgotten the lambs ; he gathers them in his arms, and 
carries them in his bosom. It is not like him to cast 
them out from among his people, or thrust them from the 
pale and primleges of his Church, 

8. The Church of God is 07ie^ and has been one, from 
Abraham until now. The Church is now built on the 
same foundation as at the first, having the same chief 
corner-stone. God has made a covenant with the Church, 
and it is an " everlasting covenant." The Church has 
now the same Head and the same spiritual requirements 
as when David sang and Abraham believed in God. 
God's law provided that children should be admitted into 
the Church by its initiatory right. That law has never 
been repealed^ and must stand good until God himself 
repeals it. Children, therefore, by his covenant have the 
right of initiation into the Church. It was not neces- 
sary that this should be specially affirmed in Christ's 
day, any more than it was that the ten commandments 
should be recnacted ; it was then well understood and 



A CATECHISM OJT BAPTIS:>r. 33 

acted upon. The obligation to keep tlie Sabbath-day 
holy, and to keep all the ten commandments, as well as 
the obligation to receive infants into the Church, is 
binding without special reenactment, because these enact- 
Qnents loere never repealed, Paul, moreover, says (Gal. 
3 : 14) that "the blessing of Abraham," an important 
part of which consisted in the covenant connection of 
his children, had " come on the Gentiles through Jesus 
Christ." Peter, speaking (Acts 2 : 38) of the double 
baptism of water and of the Spirit, says : " The prom- 
ise is unto you, and to your children^ and to all that 
are afar off." 

9. Infants should be baptized because of their Church 
relation. " Children are related to the Church, spirit- 
ually, really, vitally. It is no figure of speech, but a first 
truth in the divine economy. When our Lord said, ' Of 
such is the kingdom of heaven,' he affirmed a spiritual 
relation. He did not predicate their membership in his 
kingdom of the simple fact of their baptism, or their 
circumcision, but of their being redeemed children. 
Their relation to the ' kingdom ' arose from their rela- 
tion to the King, and it applied to all children as such. 
Baptism is only the sign and seal of membership ; the 
spiritual relation, which is the real one, precedes the em- 
blematic and the conventional, and is the moral ground 
of the latter." When our Lord says, (Matt. 18:5,) 
" Whoso receiveth one such little child in my name re- 
ceiveth me," he completely identifies little children with 
himself, and his spiritual family, the true Church. In 
Mark 9 : 41, the phrase "in my name " is explained to 
mean, " because ye belong to me." This is decisive of 
the sense. On no other ground could they be received 
in Christ's name. And this he afiirms of little children, 
such as one could hold in his arms, as Cln*ist thus held 
that little one. As they belong to the " general assembly 
and Church of the first born, whose names are written 
in heaven," in " the Lamb's book of life," as they are 
spiritually, really, vitally, related to the Church, they are 



84 A CATECHIS^kl OF BAPTISM. 

entitled to baptism, the visible sign and seal of that 
relationship. 

10. Apostolic practice shows that infants should be 
baptized. In baptizing families, the Apostles acted 
according to the provisions of the existing covenant. 
It was the apostolic custom to baptize the children im- 
mediately after tlie baptism of the parents, as is indicated 
by the fact that there are eleven instances recorded in the 
'New Testament in which infant baptism is involved. 
The familiar way in which these instances are mentioned 
suggests the probability that infant baptism w^as by no 
means an unusual thing in the Christian Church, and 
that many families were baptized in the same way. 

11. Our Lord says : " Of such is the kingdom of God." 
By taking infants in his arms, and publicly recognizing 
them as subjects of his kingdom, he certainly authorized 
the ajjplication of the distinguishing symbol of that 
kingdom. Can any adult believer give any better evi- 
dence of being worthy of this ordinance than Christ has 
given of the worthiness of infants ? An adult professor 
may be untrue and unworthy to he baptized into the Mng- 
dom^ but the great Head of the Church gives the most 
positive evidence of the fitness of infants for baptism, for 
to such the kingdom of God belongs. Can there be any 
mistake when he speaks ? What more than this do we 
need ? There is reason and propriety, therefore, in dedi- 
cating them to God in the ordinance of baptism. Why 
should we deny them the seal when Christ has declared 
them entitled to the thing sealed ? 

12. Infants should be baptized because they are justified 
by the blood of Christ. Through him grace flows to all 
children. Faith is not required of them because they can 
not exercise it, and they are saved without it. The in- 
fant stands in the same relation to God that the adult 
Christian does. It has a moral fitness for baptism and 
Church relations. If the infimt dies in infancy, it will 
as surely go to be with Jesus as the dying saint of rij^er 
years. Then the infant is truly a member of Christ's invis- 
ible Church, and it has therefore the same claim for admis- 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 35 

sion to the visible Church that the believing adult has, 
namely, justification through the blood of Christ. Can 
you exclude them, then, and be guiltless ? Nay, it is your 
imperative duty to bring them unto Christ in baptism, 
that they may be admitted to the visible Church of 
Christ, and '' forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom 
of God." 

81. Have you any additional proof to sustain the doc- 
trine of infant baptism ? 

Yes. The following collateral evidence heljDS to 
establish the validity of infant baptism : 

1. The teachings of the immediate successors' of the 
Apostles show that infant baptism was handed dow^n from 
them. Irenaeus was one of the early fathers. He was 
the pupil of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John the 
Evangelist. He was born near the close of the first cen- 
tury. His writings show that infant baptism was an 
ordinance of the Church in his day. 

Justin Martyr was cotemporaneous with Irenseus, and 
the first man of great learning w^ho adorned the Church 
after Paul. He wrote about forty years after the apos- 
tolic age. In his writings he speaks of persons of sev- 
enty years of age who were made disciples in their in- 
fancy, and therefore received infant baptism. Justin 
Martyr had a dialogue with a celebrated Jew, and in it 
Justin compares baptism with circumcision. He declares 
that " they are alike in their nature and use." He says 
all are permitted to receive baptism, and none are ex- 
cluded on account of their age. And as baptism came 
in the place of circumcision, infant baptism must have 
been an ordinance of the Church. 

After these men came Tertullian and Origen, who 
were both young men when Irenaeus and Justin Martyr 
died. These witnesses both speak of infant baptism as 
having universally prevailed in the Church from the 
Apostles' day. Tertullian urged the " delaying of bap- 
tism" until just before death for certain reasons, but 
speaks of it as the well-known and general practice of 
his day. He writes of infants of a '' guiltless age," who 



86 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

" can not of themselves " come to Christ, and " know 
not whither they are brought v>'hen they are brought to 
baptism." Origen sjDeaks of himself as having been a 
baptized child. He was a very learned man. He trav- 
elled extensively among the churches. His father had 
died a martyr for Christ. Timothy and Titus had lived 
with the Origen family many years. Infant baptism was 
of almost daily occurrence, and common to tlie Church 
in every place. If infant baptism were a delusion, where 
were Timothy, and Titus, and Polycarp, and Irenaeus, 
that they did not expose the error everywhere prevailing 
in the»Chm'ch ? Origen says, in his Homily Eighth, on 
Leviticus, chapter 12 : "According to the usage of 
the Church, baptism is given to infants." In his Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, book 5, he 
says : '* For this cause it was that the Church received 
cm oipder from the Apostles to give haptisra even to in- 
fantsP And he specially speaks of those infants who 
have never committed any actual sins. 

'• In the time of Cyprian, in the third century, there 
arose a controversy concerning the day when the child 
should be baptized, whether or not before the eighth 
day. But there was no question about the point whether 
children ought to be baptized — in this they were all 
agreed." 

Thus do those who sat at the feet of the Apostles and 
earliest fathers testify to the validity of infant baptism. 

2. That infant baptism was the universal practice of 
the Church from the days of the Apostles is strongly 
corroborated by the foct that for hundreds of years next 
after their day, there was no sect or schism in the Church 
that did not practise it ; and from the fifth century to 
the present time, in every period, it has been obsei'ved 
by the greater part of the Christian Church. 

3. The history of the Church furnishes no satisfoctory 
evidence of this practice having ever crept in. If infant 
baptism had sprung up as a new doctrine or practice, it 
would have arrested the attention of the historians of 
the Church. There is no trace of opposition to the first 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 37 

practice of infant baptism. There can be no time men- 
tioned in wiiich the baptism of infants was first intro- 
duced after the death of the Apostles. There is no writ- 
ten record to show that it was introduced as a novelty 
among Christians, and we have therefore the strongest 
reason to believe that this practice has come down to us 
from the days of the Apostles. 

4. The Catacombs of Rome furnish evidence indicating 
that infant baptism w^as practised by the Apostolic 
Church. Long before the beginning of the Christian 
era, excavations for building-stone were made near where 
Rome nov^ stands. In the course of hundreds of yearg 
they became a net-work, extending from fifteen to twenty 
miles under ground. Cicero, in his oration for Cluen- 
tius, speaks of them. For the first three hundred years 
after Christ, these recesses were the burial-place of the 
entire Christian population of Rome. There the Chris- 
tians dwelt during the persecutions in the first age of 
the Church. Jerome visited them about the year 300, 
and calls them '' the sepulchres of the apostles and mar- 
tyrs." Here, in those dens and caves of the earth, were 
the doctrines and teachings of the Apostles preserved in 
their primitive simplicity and purity. The relics and in- 
scriptions found there indicate that infant baptism was 
an established ceremony among them. In those cata- 
combs there are numerous epitaphs of children who are 
called " faithfuls " and " neophytes," which titles could 
not have been applied to them unless they had been bap- 
tized. The age at Avhich they died shows that they were 
baptized in infancy. Some of these epitaphs read as fol- 
lows : '' The tile of Candid us, the neophyte^ who lived 
twenty-one months ; buried on the nones of September." 
" Flavia Jovina, who lived three years and thirty days — 
a neophyteP " Leopard us rests here in peace, with holy 
spirits ; having received baptism, he w^ent to the blessed 
innocents. This was placed by his parents, with whom he 
lived seven years and seven months." " Bufilla, newly 
baptized, who lived two years and forty days." 

5. The evidence is abundant, specific, Jmd certain that 



38 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

Christ, when he mstituted the new dispensation, did not 
deprive infants of the ancient privilege which belonged 
to children when the Gospel was preached to Abraham. 
iSTot one word of evidence can be adduced from the 
Scriptures, or the history of the Church for the first four 
hundred years, to prove that infants ought not to be bap 
tized. It is alike unjewish and unchristian to refuse 
them the initiatory rite of the Church. 

6. The Head of the Church has seen fit to make bap- 
tism occupy an important place in his economy of salva- 
tion, and he has not shut the children out. This ordi- 
nance belono's to them. Throug^h the o'race of the Lord 
Jesus, infants belong to his kingdom. Can we, then, 
rightly refuse them the sign and seal of their relationship 
and heirship ? There were disciples who rebuked those 
who brought infants to Christ during his sojourn on the 
earth, and it was just like him to be displeased with 
them. How much alike is human nature in every age ! 
There are disciples now who rebuke those who bring 
them. With such disciples the Master can not but be 
displeased. Can you stand between those little children 
and their privileges and be blameless ? And if ye have 
done this wrong to one of these little ones, does not the 
Judge of all the earth say : Ye have done it unto me ? 

XV. — Circumcision a:n"d Baptism. 

82. What relation has baptism to circumcision ? 
Baptism occupies the place under the evangelical 

dispensation that circumcision did under the Levitical. 

83. By what evidence can you sustain that position ? 

1. Baptism does for us what circumcision did for the 
Jews. 

2. Persons were initiated into the Jewish Church 
by the rite of circumcision. Persons are initiated into 
the Christian church by the rite of baptism. 

3. The only way of admission into the Church of 
God, under either dispensation has been by circumcision 
in the one case, and by baptism in the other. 



J 



I 



A catechis:m of baptism. 39 

4. Circumcision and baptism are both alike, tlie out- 
ward, visible sign of the same inward, spiritual grace. 
The Apostle Paul speaks of baptism as being evangelical 
circumcision, in Gal. 3 : 27, 29: "For as many of you 
as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
heirs according to the promise." 

XVI. — Mode of Christia:n" Baptism. 

84. What is the Scripture mode of Christian baptism ? 
Affusion. This is apparent from its emblematical 

import. It is the symbol of certain gospel blessings, 
which are repeatedly spoken of under the figure of sprink- 
ling or pouring, and never under that of immersion. 
The prophet, speaking of the Messiah, says, (Isaiah 52 : 
15 : ) "So shall he sprinkle many nations." If this prom- 
ise refers to the influences which Christ bestows upon 
the nations of the earth, " through the redemption of his 
blood" called "the blood of sprinkling," then these gra- 
cious influences are designated by the term sprinkling^ 
and baptism, the outward sign, should surely correspond 
with it. Or, if this promise refers to the admission of 
persons into the Church by the ordinance of baptism, it 
fixes the mode to be affusion^ and not immersion. The 
prophet does not say : So shall he immerse many nations. 

85. What term is employed in the New Testament to 
denote the manner of the application of the blood of 
Christ? 

The term sprinkling. Paul says, (Hebrews 12: 22:) 
" Ye are come . . . to the blood of sprinkling^ that speak- 
eth better things than that of Abel." And Peter speaks 
(1 Peter 1 : 2) of the same " sprinkling of the blood of 
Jesus Christ." If, through the sprinkling of the blood 
of Christ, moral cleansing is effected, then the outward 
ordinance of baptism, which is the symbol of this in- 
ward cleansing, should correspond thereto in form. 

86. Was immersion practised by the Apostles and by 
the Apostolic Church ? 



40 A CATECHISM OF BAPTIS:^. 

There is no evidence tlirit it was. The word ha}^' 
tizo was evidently used to denote only the ordinance of 
baptism, without reference to the mode. Baptism is an 
emblem of the purifying influences of tlie Holy Spirit ; 
and the grand and leading emblem of puriiication insti- 
tuted by Jehovah himself is sprbikling. Immersion is 
never foretold by the prophets, but sprinkling is, and 
that too as connected with the new dispensation. When 
immersion is practised the water is sometimes inevita- 
bly /ar />'0??z 6em^^9^^?*6, whereas "pure water" is in- 
dispensable in this symbolical washing. Si3rinkling is 
more simple, more in accordance with the whole spirit 
of the New Testament, and an ordinance of universal 
adaptation. In the Jewish ceremonies, although the 
blood was sometimes poured out at the base of the altar, 
and sometimes smeared on its horns, or on parts of the 
person for whom expiation was to be made, yet the grand 
significant emblem was sprinJdlng, The v>'hole nation 
was familiar with tho idea that where there was sprink- 
ling there was mercy. Sprinkling and mercy, in the 
great heart of the nation, were linked together. When 
the Vvdiole nation was consecrated to God at Sinai, Moses 
sprbikled all the people^ (Hebrews 9 : 19.) On the great 
day of atonement the High-priest entered the most holy 
place, and sprinJded the Ark of the Covenant, (Leviticus 
4:17, and Hebrews 9 : 25.) Paul and Peter both speak 
of the blood of sprinlding, Sj^rinkling throughout all 
the Bible is the symbol of mercy and blessing. Where 
tlie blood of the sacrifices was sprinkled there was mercy. 
When the destroying angel passed over Egypt, there 
was mercy wliere the blood was sprinkled. There is no. 
evidence in the word of God that this ancient sign of 
mercy and blessing and cleansing was discarded, when 
Christian baptism was instituted. There is no reason 
why this long-familiar, well-understood, and God-estab- 
lished symbol should be discarded, and immersion substi- 
tuted. "There are three," says the Apostle, (1 John 
5:8,) " that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the 
water, and the blood : aiid these three agree in one.^^ As the 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTIS:iI. 41 

Spirit bears witness through the mode of Si^iision— fall- 
ing upon — and as the blood bears witness through the 
mode of affusion — heing sprinMed — so should the water 
bear witness in the form of affusion^ for God's design is 
that these three should bear witness in earth, and that 
these three should agree in one. The testimony in fi- 
vor of sprinkling is clear and irrefutable. It is the Bible 
mode. It is a form instituted by Jehovah himself, was 
practised throughout the Jewish dispensation, was adopt- 
ed by John the Baptist, and y/as practised by the Apos- 
tles and the primitive Church. Immersion never was 
the scriptural symbol of mercy and blessing and cleansing, 
and can novv^here be found in the Bible as an ordinance, 
either implied, acknovv^ledged, sanctioned, or commanded. 

87. When Vvas immersion introduced as a mode of 
baptism ? 

The practice of immersion was probably introduced 
in an early age of the Church. Some men are so 
organized mentally that they are prone to yield an un- 
due regard to forms and ceremonies^ and hence the prac- 
tice was introduced and persisted in. Men of the purest 
motives sometimes run into extremes. In Paul's day 
members of the Christian Church adopted a strange error 
concerning the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They 
probably argued that if a little wine and a little bread 
are good in this ordinance, a little more must be better, 
and so they ate and drank to excess. And men were 
just as likely to err in reference to the sacrament of bap- 
tism. If a little water is good, more must be better, 
the Vvdsdom of this world would suggest. Some minds 
are so peculiarly organized, that they can never under- 
stand what good a little water can do sprinkled on a 
person's head, but imagine there is special virtue in the 
grosser form of immersion. 

XVII. — Philip axd the Eu-js^uch. 

88. Do the Scriptures indicate the mode in which 
Philip baptized the eunuch ? 

The narrative shows that Philip and the eunuch 



42 A catechis:m of baptism. 

were riding in a certain desert together, and they con- 
versed about a particular portion of Isaiah's prophecy 
which the eunuch had been reading. He did not under- 
stand the teaching of the prophet, (Isaiah 52 : 13, etc.,) 
who spoke of One whose visage was more marred than 
any other man, who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, 
and who was to '' sprinlde many nations^ Philip be- 
gan (Acts 8 : 35) at the same scripture, and preached 
unto him Jesus. They came to a certain water in the 
desert, and the eunuch wanted to be baptized, for he 
had just been reading about baptism — " so shall he sprin- 
kle many nations." There was nothing in the prophecy 
he had been reading to lead him to think of immer- 
sion. He had been reading and speaking about sprink- 
ling. The prophet foretold that Messiah must sprinkle 
many nations. That prophecy must be fulfilled, though 
Jesus " baptizeth not, but his disciples." They both 
went down into and came up out of the water — that 
is, more correctly, they went to and came from the 
water. But if we take the passage as it reads, it does 
not say he iraniersed him. Many persons have gone 
down into the water a thousand times, and have come 
up out of it as often, and not once gone under the water. 
As the Scriptures indicate that the eunuch was sprink- 
led, so does common-sense suggest the same fact. 
If immersion were required, would not Philip have de- 
sired him to wait until the chariot would arrive at a 
stopping-place, and facilities be procured for attending 
to such a work ? Is it probable they would engage in 
an act that would involve the necessity of continuing 
their journey, one man wet all over, and the other man 
half wet ? Why this inconvenient wetting? Was ever 
that thing so done since ? Who ever saw a parallel to 
that scene as immersionists paint it ? But if the thing 
done by Philip were sprinkling, as the prophet had fore- 
told, and about which they had been reading and speak- 
ing, there was no difficulty in the way. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 43 

XVIII. — The Jailer of Philippi. 

89. How was the jailer of Philippi baptized ? 

He was baptized in the night, and in the prison. 
(Acts 16 : 24-34.) If the parties concerned had left the 
prison, to attend to that ordinance, the jailer would have 
been guilty of violating the laws of his country, and the 
most sacred duty of his office, and Paul and Silas would 
have been involved in the act. Moreover, Paul and 
Silas would have been liable to the charge of hypocriti- 
cally pretending, when morning came, that they had not 
been out of the prison, for they refused to leave it, un- 
til the magistrates should come and take them out.. 
The inference is inevitable that his baptism must have 
been by affusion. 

XIX. — Buried by Baptism. 

90. What does the Apostle mean by being " buried by 
baptism " ? 

He is speaking not of symbolical baptism, which is 
with water ; but of the real, essential baptism, which is 
with the Holy Ghost. 

91. How do you prove that ? 

The whole passage with which those words are con- 
nected shows that he does not allude to natural things^ 
but spiritual, " How shall we," says he, (Romans 6 : 2,) 
" that are dead to sin ?" He does not refer to a physi- 
cal condition of himself and his brethren, when he says 
^'loe that are dead^'' but to a spiritual. Ye that " were 
baptized into Jesus Christ," does not mean a physical 
act — into water ^ but a spiritual baptism " into Jesus 
Christ,'^'* Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 
into death — not buried in baptism into water, nor into 
the grave, but into death. There is no allusion here to 
water baptism, nor to its mode. The Apostle is speak- 
ing of spiritual death, burial, resurrection, and life. He 
speaks also in the same place of our being p)lanted to- 
gether in the likeness of his death, and of our old man 
" being crucified with him." If the baptism mentioned 



44 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. "^ 

be a literal burial of tlie body in water, we sbould adopt 
the same interpretation in reference to the planting and 
crucifixion, and be literally planted and crucified. Be- 
sides, to follow the figures literally, the person should be 
put under and left there. This alone is burying and 
planting. But, no, the whole passage has a spiritual^ 
not physical, significance. Being ''baptized into his 
death" can not mean a physical act, because there is no 
similitude between being put under water and being 
hung upon a cross, between the heavens and the earth, 
to die. \ 

92. Does Paul teach the same doctrine elsev^^here? 

In the Epistle to the Colossians, (chapter 2 : 10-12,) 
Paul corroborates what has just been aflirmed. He also 
shows that the circumcision of which he speaks and 
baptism are one ; but this is the circumcision made loith- 
out hands^ and hy lohich circumcision "ye^are buried 
with him in baptism," and not by water. This is not 
water baiDtism, then, but that baptism of the Spirit which 
is " through the faith of the operation of God, y/ho hath 
raised him from the dead." 

Romans 6:3: " Know ye not that so m.any of us as 
were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death ?" That is, as many as were united to Christ, by 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, were made partakers of 
the benefits of his death. 

1 Cor. 12: 13: "Fori?/ one Spirit,^^ not by water, 
" are we all baptized into one body," that is, " baptized 
into Jesus Christ." 

Romans 6:11: " Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves 
to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through 
Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Can water baptism, then, accomplish the great moral 
change to Avhich the Apostle here alludes ? If we inter- 
pret these passages to refer to physical acts, they involve 
us in difficulty. That interpretation would favor the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But every thing is 
plain, and consistent, and beautifully significant, if we 
suppose him, in speaking of being buried into Christ's 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 45 

death, and being planted, and crucified, and dead, and 
yet alive, to refer, not to the outward man, but to the 
hidden man of the heart ; not to j^hysical, but to spiritual 
things. 

XX. — Israelites baptized uxto Moses. 

93. What is meant by the Israelites being baptized 
unto Moses ? 

The Apostle alludes especially to the import of bap- 
tism. They were consecrated unto Moses, when passing 
through the sea, and took him as their leader and guide. 

94. How were they baptized ? 

It could not have ^oq^q\i by immersion. Immersion 
means being dipped, or plunged, or overwhelmed in a 
fluid until covered by it, and they passed " on dry ground 
through the midst of the sea," (Exodus 14 : 16.) A man 
can not be immersed on dry ground. They v,^ere bap- 
tized by affusion, for " the heavens d^ropped^"^ " the clouds 
poured out water "^^ upon them, (Psalm 77:17.) The 
people of God who went over " dry shod," and upon 
whom the sprinkling rain fell were, Paul says, the hap- 
tized people. The hosts of Pharaoh were immersed — 
they were buried in a " liquid tomb," but they were not 
baptized. 

XXI. J^OAH AXD THE AkK. 

95. What do you understand by what Peter says of 
baptism in connection with Xoah ? 

He probably refers to the baptism of >Toah and his 
family, or the ark, or both conjoined. In either case, 
there was not immersion, but there was affusion. The 
rain fell upon them. They were sprinkled. The wicked 
inhabitants of the world were immersed. Those who 
were sprinkled were baptized, and had mercy. Those 
vv^ho were immersed " went down into a watery grave" 
and perished. '' The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us," not the outward rite^ wdiich is the 
putting off the filth of the flesh, but the inward or spirit- 
ual operation, through which we are purified, so as to 
live with a good conscience toward God, (1 Peter 3 : 21.) 



46 A CATECHISM OF BAPTlSil. 



XXII. — Paul axd Apollos. 

96. Do the focts recorded in the Xew Testament, con- 
cerning Paul and Apollos, throw additional light on the 
subject of baptism ? 

Paul stands out preeminently the model minister of the 
Xew Testament. The great theme of his preaching was, 
not Christ and him ho.ptized^ but Christ and him cruci- 
fied. Apollos, when a young man, did not xmderstand 
the things of God as Avell as Paul. He was eloquent, 
however, and mighty in the Scriptures, and being pro- 
bably trained in the school of John, he went i^reaching 
in the synagogues, " knowing only the baptism of John," 
(Acts 8 : 25.) When Aquila and Priscilla heard him 
they " took him unto them, and expounded unto him the 
way of God more perfectly." 

Paul says, (1 Corinthians 3 : 6,) " I have planted, Apol- 
los watered." This language implies that immersion 
could not have been the mode in which Apollos baptized, 
and that the mode must have been sprinkling, or pour- 
ing. Paul never would have used such a figure if Apol- 
los had immersed the people. He was too correct a 
writer for that. An imbiased mind would naturally infer 
that those plants were watered by affiision. Xo garden- 
er ever waters his plants by immersion. There is no 
evidence to indicate immersion here. 

Apollos appears to have made the subject of water 
baptism too prominent a topic in his preaching. Paul, on 
the contrary, " determined not to know any thing among 
them, save Jesus Christ and him crucified." '^ Christ 
sent me," says he, " not to baptize, but to preach the gos- 
pel." Again he says : " I thank God that I baptized none 
of you, but Crispus and Gains. And I baptized also the 
household of Stephanus," (1 Corinthians 1 : 14-16.) What 
a rebuke there is in these words for those whose one 
peculiar and distinctive theme is the baptism of water ! 
Xo such preacher could adopt the language of Paul, 
after a successful and glorious ministry, as his had been 
at Corinth, and say : '' I thank God I have only baptized 
two of you, and the family of another." 



A CATECHIS:,! OF BAniSM. 47 

XXIII. — He that belie yeth axd is baptized. 

97. Vv hat is the obvious teaching of the word of God 
in the passage in Mark, (chapter 16 : 16 :) "He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved " ? 

If an iinbaptized person is born again through faith in 
Christ, he is a proper subject for water baptism ; but if 
he is already baptized he should not receive that ordinance 
again. It is not anywhere said in God's word that water 
baptism must come after believing in Christ. It is not, 
he that believeth and shall he baptized, but " he that bj- 
lieveth and is baptized." If one is already baptized, 
when he becomes a believer, that is sufficient. Xor v>^as 
it taught by John that/u*5 baptism should be preceded by 
faith. John did not require a j^rofession of faith of his 
disciples. They vrere baptized upon repentance and the 
confession of sin. 

The reasoning that requires water baptism to follow 
the act of faith is unsound, and if adopted will lead into 
serious errors. This theory involves the idea that the 
one act of faith, through which the individual is accepted 
of the Father, secures his eternal salvation, and meets 
the claims of the word of God. But the divine testi- 
mony is, not he that belie V6C?, on some particular occa- 
sion, shall be saved ; it is rather, he that believe^A — he 
that has faith, and continues to have it^ shall be saved. 

It does not follow because one had faith yesterday that 
he therefore has faith to-day. Faith should be an act of 
the heart, as regularly repeated as is the rising of the 
sun. There should be the forth-putting of the hand of 
faith — the confidently taking hold of the hand of God 
every day^ and all the year round. If water baptism 
must/b//oz(j the act of justifying faith, then, as that faith 
should be an every-day work, repeated baptisms would 
be required of every Christian. He who becomes a be- 
liever in Christ may be asked if he is baptized^ and if that 
rite is performed, whether before or after he is renewed 
by the power of the Holy Spirit, through faith, the law 
in the case is met. " He that believeth and is bap>tized 
shall be saved." 



48 A catechis:m of baptis:^.!. 

XXIV. — The Limeusioxist Ckeed Ixconsistext a^'d 
Xarroav. 

98. Wherein does the iininersionist creed agree with, 
and differ from, that of the Christian Church generally? 

They agree in affirming that by baptism we are initi- 
ated into the visible church of Christ. The immersion- 
ist creed differs from all others in affirming that no per- 
son should be baptized but a believing adult, and that 
there is no baptism without immersion. 

99. What is the logical inference deducible from the 
dogma of the immersionists ? 

If the immersionist creed were true, there never has 
been a visible Church of Christ on the earth except Bap- 
tist churches. All those in other churches who were 
faithful followers of Christ, and who nobly served their 
Master, and who triumphed over sin and over the world 
through faith, and whose robes were washed and made 
white in the blood of the Lamb, have been stamped by 
the iminersioiiist creed icith the brand of excormnimica- 
tion ; for, says that creed, they were too early brought to 
Christ if they were brought when little children, and 
they never received baptism if they were not immersed. 
A creed which inevitably excludes such persons from 
the visible Church, is manifestly inconsistent and narrow. 

100. Has the peculiar doctrine of the immersionists 
been believed by any considerable jDortion of the Christ- 
ian Church ? 

Only a small fraction of the Christian Church ever be- 
lieved their dogma. The great body of divines who 
have been eminent for piety and learning and genius, 
and whose writings have graced the literature of the 
ages, has been radically opposed to the peculiar doctrine 
of the immersionists — namely, that only adults should be 
baptized, and that there is no baptism without immer- 
sion. 

101. Is the immersionist creed in accordance with the 
genius of Christianity ? 

The immersionist creed is antagonistic to :ae genius of 



I 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 49 

Christianity. It says : We are right ; all who differ from 
us are wrong — we only are the Church of Christ, there is 
no visible Church but ours, for none can enter the Church 
but in our way. All ye great and good men of the past, 
says that creed, who imagined ye were in Christ, and 
who lived and died in the laitli of Christ ; ye pillars of 
the Church of England, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer ; ye 
princes of the Presbyterian Church, Calvin, Knox, Chal- 
mers ; ye eloquent divines of the Independent Church, 
Baxter, Howe, Watts ; ye noble spirits of the Methodist 
Church, Wesley, Whitefield, Asbury ; ye faithful children 
of the cross, who pined in inquisitions, and who died for 
Christ at the martyr's stake ; and ye nameless ones who 
sleep in unremembered graves, the immersionist creed 
hath denied you the fellowship of the saints ! It matters 
not that ye had faith in Christ, that ye had been convert- 
ed, that ye were new creatures in Christ Jesus, that ye 
had been baptized with the Spirit, and that ye had been 
baptized with water — if ye were not hmnersed in wetter^ 
all else is vain, ye were not in the visible Church of 
Christ. Stand ye aside ! we only are in the Church, and 
immersion is the door ! Such are the inevitable teachings 
of the immersionist creed. It is therefore obviously an- 
tagonistic to the whole spirit, and sco^dc, and breadth of 
Christianity, and to the plain teachings of the Bible. 

102. Are immersionists as inconsistent and narrow as 
their creed? 

Immersionists are better than their creed. Their creed 
is opposed to the fellowship of the saints, but they love 
the brethren in Christ. Their creed is Roman Catholic 
where it requires the rebaptism of those who would come 
into their fold from other churches ; but they are Protest- 
ant, for they say : " No matter — ye are Christians, though 
ye were never immersed." Their creed, if it be consist- 
ent with itself, 7nust be " close-communion ;" but they 
love Christians of every name. Their creed excommu- 
nicates the seraphic masters of spiritual song, Charles 
Wesley and Isaac Watts, because they were never im- 
mersed ; but they have admitted their hymns to church 
3 



50 A CATECHISIM OF BAPTISiT. 

fellowship with them, and made them the vehicle of 
praise and supplication in all their churches. Their creed 
excludes children from the privileges and pale of the 
Church on earth ; but they testify, when these are taken 
away by death, that they belong to the Church of the 
first-born whose names are written in heaven. Their 
creed is inconsistent, un scriptural, and behind the age, 
and all intelligent inimersionists have outgrown it. In 
every recognition, by an immersionist, of a Christian of 
a different faith and practice, as a brother in the Church 
of Christ, there is an admission of the inconsistency of 
their creed. In every instance in which an immersionist 
church has abandoned the close-communion idea, and in 
every effort to do so, there is an acknowledgment of the 
unsoundness of their creed. In the recent attempt, by 
many of the most learned men in Baptist churches, to 
publish and circulate a new version of the Scriptures, 
ignoring the old landmarks, and substituting phraseology 
that will teach immersion, there is the confession, on 
the part of those Baptist scholars, that our good old 
English Bible — the Bible of our fathers, and of Protest- 
antism, does not teach the doctrine of immersion^ as they 
desire the Bible should teach it. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

SECOND PART. 



XXV. — Positions Defined. 

103. Is further inquiry into the baptismal question 
desirable ? 

The points upon which the Christian Church is divided 
on the subject of baptism are important and vital. Fur- 
ther discussion is therefore indispensable. If the im- 
mersionist creed be true, there are no baptized persons 
except those who have been dipped ; and there are no 
Christian churches except immersionist churches ; and 
there are no Christians except those persons who have 
been dipped upon a profession of faith. 

104. Has inquiry on this subject in the past been 
profitable ? 

Yes. Information has been elicited. Some long- 
cherished errors have been abandoned. It is settled 
that Christian baptism was instituted after the resurrec- 
tion of Christ, and before his ascension. Immersionists 
now admit that infant baptism was practised long before 
the errors of popery appeared, and in the times of Ter- 
tulKan, who was born in the year 160. Immersionists 
also admit that infant baptism was practised in the Cat- 
acombs of Rome, where dwelt the persecuted Christians 
of the earliest ages of the Church. 

105. Will you mention some of the points still open 
to discussion ? 

1. Immersionists regard the Greek word haptizo as 



62 A cat£Chis:m of baptism. 

the chief corner-stone of then- temple. The defenders of 
the immersionist dogma affirm that it has " one meaning, 
and only one meaning." Some immersionis4:s, however, 
affirm that it means to dip, and nothing but to dip. Others 
declare, with equal emj^hasis, that it means to plunge, and 
nothing but to plunge. Others, again, contend that it sig- 
nifies to immerse, and that only. And these, Avithout ap- 
pearing to perceive that they contradict each other, vehe- 
mently protest that it has one, and only one meaning. The 
Baptist Confession of Faith affirms that " baptizing is 
dipping, and dipping is baptizing." If this salient point 
of the immersionist stronghold can be carried, the whole 
fabric will falL 

2. Affusionists, on the other hand, affinn that the 
Greek word bcqytizo has various meanings, and that no 
necessity has existed to prevent it from being used, as 
other words, with different significations. It is con- 
tended, also, that baptizing is not dipping, and that dip- 
ping is not baptizing. Baptizing is more than dipping. 
The word baptize carries a far richer freight of meaning 
than the word dip. Objects may, therefore, be dipped 
without being baptized. It is believed, by affusionists, 
that to baptize is more than to plunge, or to immerse, or 
to sprinkle, or to pour upon ; and that the immersionist 
creed, which restricts the signification of the word bap- 
tizo to '' one meaning, and only one meaning," and 
which fails to recognize the wealth of meaning which is 
included in the words baptize and baj^tism, is radically 
defective. 

106. TVbat writers have in late years taken a prom- 
inent position on the immersionist side of this contro- 
versy ? 

Gale, Booth, Hinton, Carson, Robinson, Xoel, Curtis, 
Chase, Pengilly, Conant, Jewett, Cramp, and others. 

107. Do these immersionist writers agree among 
themselves ? 

No ; they frequently, under a logical pressure, contra- 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM:. 53 

diet each other. There is among them a want of accord- 
ance with principles. 

108. What do you infer when immersionist writers 
disagree, on the most important points, with themselves 
and with each other ? 

That in the immersionist creed there are radical er- 
rors, and that further investigation is needed. 

109. Which of the afore-mentioned writers may be 
taken as a representative of the whole school ? 

1. Rev. J. M. Cramp, D.D., late President of Acadia 
College, Nova Scotia, who has reviewed the first part 
of this work, in several communications in the Christian 
Messenger^ of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and in a work called 
a Catechism of Christian Baptisni, 

2. Dr. Cramp's Catechism has received high commen- 
dation from leading immersionist divines, and has been 
republished by \k\Q Baptist Board of Publication^ Phila- 
delphia. The usual immersion arguments are given in 
a condensed form. Perhaps no immersionist w^riter has 
succeeded in defending his creed more successfully than 
Dr. Cramp has done in his recent publication. If the 
arguments advanced by Dr. Cramp will not bear the 
test of criticism, the immersionist treasury can furnish 
no weapons of attack or of defense more formidable. 

XXVI. — Immersionist Stratagem. 

110. Do immersionists quote other divines in support 
of the immersionist creed ? 

Immersionist writers sometimes give extracts from 
others who are prominent affusionists, which appear to 
favor the immersionist idea ; and these extracts being 
disconnected from the context, have frequently misrep- 
resented the views of their authors. 

111. Can you mention an immersionist writer who 
does thus mislead ? 

Dr. Cramp selects from some divines a sentence or 



54: A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM". 

more that appears to favor his theory. He conceals 
^vhat the writer says in immediate connection with the 
part quoted, and which explains or qualifies it, and thus 
misrepresents his author.' 

112. What authors does Dr. Cramp thus misrepre- 
sent? 

John Wesley, Isaac TTatts, Adam Clarke, George 
Whitefield, Thomas Chalmers, Martin Luther, and 

others. 

113. In what position does Dr. Cramp attempt to 
place those authors ? 

He attempts to show that they believe the immersion- 
ist creed, although, during all their ministerial career, 
their practice was antagonistic thereto. 

Dr. Cramp does not appear to have remembered that, 
if his accusations against the brethren whom he has 
named were well founded, any testimony from men 
whose faith and practice would be so completely contra- 
dictory as theirs is misrepresented to have been is 
utterly worthless. 

114. Will you mention some instances to show how 
Dr. Cramp misrepresents those whose opinions he pro- 
fesses to give ? 

1. Dr. Cramp quotes {Catechism, Y)^ge 40) from Dr. 
A. Clarke's Xotes on Rom. 6:4: ''It is probable that 
the Apostle here alludes to the mode of administering 
baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under 
the water.*' In Dr. Clarke's Xotes the word "proba- 
ble " is given in italics, though not so quoted by Dr. 
Cramp. ■ 

Dr. Clarke adds an important qualification to the 
above passage, which Dr. Cramp carefully omits : *' I 
say it is j^'^obable that the Apostle alludes to this mode 
of immersion ; but it is not absolutely certain that he 
does so, as some do imagine ; for in the next verse our 
being incorporated into Christ by bajjtism is also denoted 
by our being planted^ or rather grafted together in the 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. OO 

Uke/iess of his death ; and IN'oah's 2ivk^ floating upon the 
water, and sprinkled by the rainjrom heaven^ is a figure 
corresponding to baptism,'''* 

2. Dr. Cramp says, {Correspo7idence Christian Mes- 
senger, February 22d, 1865:) "He" (Stewart) ''asks 
for one instance of dipping. Let him read the New Tes- 
tament. Every record of baptism in that book is an 
instance of dipping, as John Wesley, and ministers of 
all Christian denominations, have again and again con- 
fessed.'' 

115. How does it appear that Dr. Cramp misrepre- 
sents Mr. Wesley ? 

1. In Mr. Wesley's Journal there are some statements 
which indicate that he, on a few occasions, either im- 
mersed persons or was present when some persons were 
immersed. The Journal, however, does not tell us that 
Mr. Wesley supposed he had authority for such a prac- 
tice in the Bible, but that such a practice was taught in 
the Prayer-Book of the Church of England, and by the 
custom of the Church. 

2. Mr. Wesley says, in his Journal : " On Saturday, 
21st February, 1736, Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, 
was' baptized according to the custom of the first 
Church, and the rule of the Church of England, by im- 
mersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from 
that hour." 

3. It is important to observe that Mr. Wesley here 
refers to what he understood the custom of the first 
Church to have been, and the rules of the Church of 
England. Mr. Wesley, at the period mentioned, (1736,) 
had not learned to take the Bible as a rule of his life in 
preference to the rules of the Church. His theological 
views and his plans of ministerial labor were subse- 
quently subjected to revision and modification. 

4. Dr. Cramp points to an act alleged to have been 
performed by Mr. Wesley in the year 1736 — several 
years before the rise of Methodism, and before his con- 



56 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM:. 

version — and asserts that 3Ir. Wesley was an iniraersion- 
ist. A just representation of Mr. Wesley's creed can 
only be had by reference to his words and his deeds 
written and performed after his heart had been renewed 
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, and his mind had 
been enlightened through patient research and study of 
the oracles of God. Dr. Cramp, however, seizes on an 
isolated instance or two, and suppressing most important 
particulars, he misrepresents him whose opinions he pro- 
fesses to give. 

116. Can you mention another instance of Dr. Cramp's 
disingenuous style ? 

Dr. Cramp says, (^Correspondence Christian Messeii- 
ger^ March 28th, 1866:) "A neighbor of mine who 
writes in the Provincial Wesley an under the signature 
of Veritas^ endeavors to be facetious on the Wesley- 
and-dipping question. He flatters himself that he has 
gained an advantage, and imagines that the great John's 
' misrepresented words ' will be expunged from the title- 
page of my Catechism. Veritas is mistaken. The dis- 
cussion has brought out three facts. First, that John 
Wesley, as a minister of the Church of England, was an 
immersionist : he was a minister of that Church, I be- 
lieve, when he died." 

117. What peculiarities are prominent in this quota- 
tion from Dr. Cramp ? 

1. Dr. Cramp misrepresents Mr. Wesley. He insinuates 
that Mr. Wesley was a Church of England minister 
until his death ; and was, as such, an immersionist. Mr. 
Wesley's life-long jDractice, and his published writings, 
show that Dr. Cramp's misrepresentation of him is 
neither accurate nor candid. 

2. Dr. Cramp's misstatements are calculated to mis- 
lead. A misstatement may be much more mischievous 
because there is a small amount of truth in a large 
amount of error. It is unnecessary to elicit evidence to 
show the disingenuousness of Dr. Cramp, who has taught 



I 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 57 

his readers that Mr. Wesley was an inimersionist, as a 
minister of the Church of Enghxnd, and was such " when 
he died." 

3. If Mr. Wesley had been an immersionist in theory, 
as he is misrepresented to have been, and an affusionist 
in practice, as he was, it seems surprising that Dr. Cramp 
should have honored him with a conspicuous place by 
the side of Paul on the title-page of his Catechism, No 
jury would receive testimony from one whose faith and 
practice were known to be as contradictory as Mr. Wes- 
ley's is said, by his accuser, to have been. It is possible 
that Dr. Cramp has not paused to measure the extent 
of the accusation involved in his ungenerous misrej^re- 
sentation of him against whom he has borne such incor- 
rect witness. 

118. Can you show by Mr. Wesley's writings that Dr. 
Cramp misrepresents him, when he says that John Wes- 
ley " was an immersionist ;" and that " John Wesley has 
again and again confessed that every record of baptism 
in the New Testament is an instance of dipping " ? 

Yes. Mr. Wesley published a Treatise on Baptism 
in November, 1756, (Works, Vol. 6, page 12.) He 
says : 

1. " Concerning baptism, I shall inquire what it is. 
It is the initiatory sacrament which enters us into cov- 
enant with God. ... It was instituted in the room 
of circumcision. For as that was a sign and seal of 
God's covenant, so is this. ... It can not be cer- 
tainly proved from Scripture that even John's (bap- 
tism) was performed by dipping. . . . Nor can it be 
proved that the baptism of our Saviour, or that adminis- 
tered by his disciples, was by immersion. No, nor that 
of the eunuch baptized by Philip ; though they both 
went down to the water : for that going down may re- 
late to the chariot, and implies no determinate depth of 
water. It might be up to their knees ; it might not be 
above their ankles. 

2. '' And as nothing can be determined from Scripture 



53 A CATECHIS]iI OF BAPTIS]y:. 

precept or example, so neither from the force or meaning 
of the word. For the words haptize and baptism do not 
necessarily imply clipping^ bat are used in other senses 
in several places. Thus we read that the Jews ' were all 
baptized in the cloud and in the sea,' (1 Cor. 10 : 2 ;) 
but they were not plunged in either. They could there- 
fore be only sprinkled by drops of the sea water and 
refreshing dews from the clouds ; probably intimated in 
that, ' Thou sentest a gracious rain upon thine inheri- 
tance, and refreshedst it when it was weary.' (Psalm 
68 : 9.) Again, Christ said to his two disciples, ' Ye shall 
be baptized wdth the baptism that I am baptized with,' 
(Mark 10 : 38 ;) but neither he nor they were dipped, 
but only sprinkled or washed with their own blood. 
Again, we read (Mark 7 : 4) of the baptisms (so it is in 
the original) of pots and cups, and tables or beds. 
Now, pots and cups are not necessarily dipped when 
they are washed. Xay, the Pharisees washed the out- 
sides of them only. And as for the tables or beds, none 
^vill suppose they could be dipped. Here, then, the 
word bajytism^ in its natural sense, is not taken for dip- 
ping, but for washing or cleansing. And that this is 
the true meaning of the word baptize^ is testified by the 
greatest scholars and most proper judges in this matter. 
It is true we read of being buried with Christ in baptism. 
But nothing can be inferred from such a figurative ex- 
pression. Xay, if it held exactly, it would make as 
much for sprinkling as for plunging ; since, in burying, 
the body is not plunged through the substance of the 
earth, but rather earth is poured or sprinkled upon it. 

3. "And, as there is no clear proof of dipping in 
Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the con- 
trary. It is highly probable the Apostles themselves 
baptized great numbers, not by dipping, but by wash- 
ing, sprinkling, or pouring w^ater. This clearly repre- 
sented the cleansing from sin, which is figured by bap- 
tism. And the quantity of water used was not material ; 
no more than the quantity of bread and wine in the 
Lord's Supper. The jailer 'and all his house were bap- 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. • 69 

tized ' in the prison ; Cornelius with his friends, (and so 
several households,) at home. Now, is it likely that all 
these had ponds or rivers in or near their houses suffi- 
cient to plunge them all ? Every unprejudiced person 
must allow the contrary is far more probable. Again, 
three thousand at one time and five thousand at another 
were converted and baptized by St. Peter at Jerusalem, 
where they had none but the gentle waters of Siloam, 
according to the observation of Mr. Fuller, ' There were 
no water-mills at Jerusalem, because there was no stream 
large enough to drive one.' The place, therefore, as 
well as the number, makes it highly probable that all 
these were baptized by sprinkling or pouring, and not 
by immersion." 

119. What do you infer from Dr. Cramp's style of 
controversial writing ? 

1. The inference appears inevitable that if Dr. Cramp, 
having read Mr. Wesley's works, on baptism, supposes 
him to have been an immersionist, he could make the 
same mistake in reference to Paul, or any other of the 
sacred writers, and misconceive that they were immer- 
sionists. 

2. It may also be inferred that if Dr. Cramp imagines 
that such men as Watts, Whitefield, Chalmers, and Lu- 
ther, who, during all their ministry, administered bap- 
tism in the mode foretold by Ezekiel, (36 : 25,) "Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you," were immersion- 
ists because, occasionally, a sentence flowed from their 
pens which had some resemblance to immersionist theo- 
logy, he might also presume that the Bible contains 
some immersionist theology, because there is, here and 
there, a passage which seems to look somewhat in that 
direction. 

3. It may be inferred, moreover, that a creed which 
requires its ablest advocates to resort in its defense to a 
style of argumentation so disingenuous as that which 
Dr. Cramp employs must be radically unsound. The 
assertion of Dr. Cramp that Mr. Wesley was an *' im- 



60 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

mersionist," and that he "again and again confessed 
that every record of baptism in the 'New Testament is 
an instance of dipping," is absurd, ungrounded, and ilhi- 
sory. Dr. Cramp's assertion is disproved by the evi- 
dence adduced. The truth never asks its defenders to 
misrepresent its assailants. If the immersionist creed 
were true, it would not make demands upon its ex- 
pounders so extravagant and humiliating. Dr. Cramp 
appears to have looked through a very deceptive me- 
dium, by which facts appear very much as a landscape 
appears in a mirage, turned upside down and variously 
distorted. 



XXVII. — Paul a:^d Regeneration. 

120. Does Paul indicate the agency through which 
the regeneration of the heart is effected ? 

Paul teaches that through the agency of the Holy 
Spirit one is renewed, becomes dead to sin and alive to 
Christ, becomes a member of Christ's spiritual body and 
one with him, and that he is thereby washed from his 
sins. Paul does not teach that the symbolical baptism, 
which is with water, can change the heart. It is the 
o*eal hajotism of the Holy Spirit that works this wondrous 
renewal. 

Romans 6 : 3, 4 : " Know ye not, that so many of us 
as were baptized into Jesus Christ (by the Holy Spirit) 
were baptized into his death ? (not into water.) There- 
fore we are buried (not have ieen buried) with him by 
baptism into death." 

Colossians 2 : 10-12 : "And ye are complete in him, 
which is the head of all principality and power : in 
whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins 
of tlie flesh by the circumcision of Christ : buried with 
him in baptism, (that is, not in water, but through tlie 
baptism of Christ by his Holy Spirit, and loithout hands^) 
wherein also ye are risen with him through (not the 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISAI. 61 

hands of any man, but) the faith of the operation of God, 
who hath raised him from the dead." 

121. What is the immersionist exegesis of the passages 
just quoted ? 

Immersionists teach that the great change of heart 
indicated in those passages is accomplished through 
immersion in water ; tliat one is baptized into Jesus 
Christ, and into his death, by immersion in water ; that 
immersion in water is meant by the putting oiFthe body 
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, and 
burial with Christ, and being risen with him. 

122. What radical error is apparent in the immersion- 
ist exegesis ? 

1. The immersionist exegesis of the passages under 
consideration teaches the doctrine of regeneration 
through the baptism of water, whereas the Bible 
teaches that regeneration can only be effected through 
the work — the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 

2. Immersionists misconceive the design of the Apos- 
tle, who does not, either in the passages just quoted, or 
elsewhere, attribute to the baptism with water a renew- 
ing or regenerating power. Paul attributes the wash- 
ing of regeneration to the Holy Ghost w^hich had been 
abundantly shed upon them. 

123. Can you quote some passages from writers who 
have held the immersionist theory, and who have sup- 
posed that the spiritual regeneration of which Paul 
wrote is effected through the baptism of water ? 

1. Dr. Cramp gives some specimens in his Catechism : 
Ambrose : *' In the font there is a transition from the 
earthly to the heavenly. This is the passover, that is, 
the sinner's passing-over — the passing-over from sin to 
life, from guilt to grace, from pollution to sanctifica- 
tion." [Cramp's Catechism^ p. 26.) 

Chrysostojn: *' Christ has given baptism as a kind of 
antidote against poisons ; and so all malice is ejected, 
and the fever is quenched, and the putridity dried up. 



62 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

We are clayey before baptism : after it, we are golden." 
(^Cram2y^s Catechism^ p. 26.) 

Jerome : " In the laver the old Adam altogether dies, 
and the new one is raised up, together with Christ ; the 
earthly perishes, and the super-celestial is born." 
{Crcwip^s Catechisyn^ p. 26.) 

Paulinus : " O wonderful mercy of God ! The sinner 
is plunged in the waves : presently he emerges from the 
water, justified." {Cramp's Catechism, ]), 26.) 

Bede, (called "The Venerable":) "He who is bap- 
tized is seen to descend into the font ; he is seen to 
ascend out of the water; but what the laver of regene- 
ration performed in him is not seen at all. It is known 
only by the piety of the faithful. He descends into the 
font, a sinner ; but he ascends, purified. He descends, a 
child of death ; but he ascends, a child of the resurrec- 
tion. He descends, a child of rebellion; but he ascends, 
a child of reconciliation. He descends, a child of 
wrath ; but he ascends, a child of mercy. Pie descends, 
a child of the devil ; but he ascends, a child of God." 
(Cramp''s Catechism, p. 26.) 

2. Campbell (founder of the Campbellite sect) says : 
" So significant, and so expressive, that v/hen the bap- 
tized believer rises out of the water, is born of water, 
enters the world a second time, he enters it as innocent, 
as clean, as unspotted as an angel." 

124. Are the extracts just quoted fair representations 
of immersionist views ? 

They express the logical inferences which grow out 
of the immeTsionist exegesis of the passages from Paul 
which we have been considering. Immersionists are 
more evangelical than their creed. Dr. Cramp, and all 
evangelical immersionists, recoil from the extravagant 
lengths to which the logical inferences of their interpre- 
tations of Paul would lead them. 

125. What appears to be the correct interpretation 
of the passages from Paul under examination ? 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. . 63 

They are to be interpreted as teaching that regenera- 
tion can be effected through the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, which is the real and essential baptism ; and not 
merely through the baptism of water, which is the sha- 
dow or the symbol thereof. 

126. How can you prove that ? 

1. The Scriptures do not teach that water baptism 
can accomplish so great a result. The renewal of the 
soul is always represented in Scripture as effected by 
the power of the Holy Spirit, through the truth. Many 
good but mistaken persons have supposed that Paul 
teaches that this change is connected with being buried 
under water — with " a watery grave " or '' a liquid tomb." 
Immersionist theology teaches it. Paul never taught it. 
God does not teach it. JSTeither does the Hebrew, nor 
the Greek, nor the English Scriptures (except the new 
Baptist version) teach that water can work that mar- 
velous renewal of our nature. That is God's work; and 
it can only be wrought through the baptism '' made 
without hands." 

2. That Paul did not refer to the symbolic baptism is 
evident from the fact that many have received water 
baptism in whom no such change as Paul indicated was 
produced. Many who have had water baptism have 
still remained in the "gall of bitterness," and unrenewed 
in heart. Hence we infer that it is not through water 
that one is buried into Christ's death, and is regenerated, 
but through the bajDtism of the Holy Spirit. 

3. The effects of the real baptism were apparent on 
the day of Pentecost, when the promise made at the 
time of the ascension was fulfilled, (Acts 1:5,8:) '' Ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
hence. . . . Ye shall receive power after that the Holy 
Ghost is come upon you." Here a real change of 
condition was effected. They received power. Water 
never could have produced such a result. They became, 
after that baptism, different men. They were not, as 
they had been, the weak and vacillating disciples ; but 



64 A catechism: of baptism. 

bold witnesses of Christ's power and truth. This is the 
7'eal^ essential baptism. This is what Christ does for us. 
We are made '' complete," not in water, but in him. 

4. Bishop Morriss, (Methodist Episcopal Church:) 
'' The next argument is raised from the doctrinal refe- 
rences to the action of baptism used by Paul, Romans 
6 : 1-11. It is thought to be very plain from this text 
that water baptism is designed to represent the death, 
burial, and resurrection of Christ, and therefore the sub- 
ject must be immersed. We reply : (1) Is there any 
mention made of water here? Not any; and if there 
was, and that for the purpose, as you suppose, of repre- 
senting the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, 
w^iat then, we ask, is the Lord's Supper intended for ? 
We have always supposed, with the Christian world 
generally, that the Lord's Supper was designed to show 
forth his death, or what he had done for us by redemp- 
tion, and water baptism to show what he does hi its by 
his Spirit ; but, according to your system, we have two 
sacraments to represent his sufferings for us and none to 
represent his grace in us ! If we were to administer the 
Lord's Supper only as an emblem of conversion, we 
should perv^ert the ordinance, and destroy its original 
design ; and when others administer baptism, as an 
emblem of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, do 
not they pervert this ordinance, and destroy its original 
design ? Certainly. Then administer as you will, but 
refer it to its proper object. (2) Every burial implies 
three things, namely, an agent, an action, and an object 
acted upon ; but here the agent is baptism — ' buried by 
baptism ' — the action is burial, and the object is the 
subject interred. And what is the nature of this death, 
burial, and resurrection ? Answer, it is a death and 
burial unto sin, and a resurrection unto 'newness of 
life.' Then whatever baptism Paul here speaks of, it is 
that which produces in believers a death unto sin, or a 
change from sin to holiness ; for this is the subject of 
his argument. And what baptism is it that converts 
the soul ? Answer, the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 65 

and this is, therefore, the baptism which Paul here 
speaks of, where his. design is to prove that, as Christ 
died for sin, we must die unto sin ; and as Christ rose 
again, so we must rise with him to newness of life. 
Hence, this proves nothing in regard to water baptism, 
inasmuch as it says nothing on the subject. The case 
in Colossians, 2d chapter, is similar, and the argument 
need not be repeated." 

5. J. H. GoDwiis" : " Christians are circumcised with 
Christ — they are consecrated and cleansed by their 
union to Christ — being buried with him in baptism, and 
raised with him through their faith in God. (Col. 2 : 11.) 
As the circumcision and crucifixion are spiritual, so the 
burial and resurrection are spiritual : and the baptism 
here referred to must be spiritual also ; and exclusively 
so, if there be consistency in the use of the terms and 
correctness in the statements. All who have this bap- 
tism do seek to be like Christ. For them there is one 
Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. This is the baptism 
which St. Peter declares does save ; that which is, not a 
cleansing of the body, nor a correspondence to the de- 
structive flood ; but the pursuit of a good conscience, the 
antitype to the example of Christ, who once suffered for 
sins, the just on behalf of the unjust, that he might 
bring us to God, whose pattern of self-denial and suffer- 
ing all are called to imitate. It is simply an assump- 
tion, without the least support either from the New 
Testament or from the Old, that, in these figurative 
expressions of the Apostles, any reference is made to 
immersions in water, such as were subsequently intro- 
duced. For these there is the authority of the Fathers 
of the third century, but not that of the Apostles of 
Christ. The purifications required by the Jewish law, 
in connection with the temple service, are called bap- 
tisms. (Heb. 9 : 10.) But no immersion of the body in 
water is commanded or mentioned in that law. Every 
purification with water, of one person by another, was 
by sprinkling. . . . All the evidence brought forward 
respecting the practice of immersion, by Jews or by 



66 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

Christians, is of a date comparatively recent, when 
superstitious customs were multiplied, and the traditions 
of men were regarded more than the commandments of 
God." 

John 13 : 8: ''Jesus answered him, If I wash thee 
not, thou hast no part with me." 

Acts 15 : 8, 9: "And God, which knoweth the hearts, 
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even 
as he did unto us ; and put no difference between us 
and them, purifying their hearts by faith." 

1 Peter 1 : 22 : "Seeing ye have purified your souls 
in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned 
love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with 
a pure heart fervently." 

Titus 3 : 5, 6 ; ''According to his mercy he saved us, 
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly through 
Jesus Christ our Saviour." 

1 Cor. 12 : 13 : "For by one Spirit are we all baptized 
into one body." 

XXVni. — Immersioxists and the Geeek Word 

Baptizo. 

127. What positions are assumed by immersionist 
writers in reference to the Greek word haptizo ? 

1. That through all Greek literature the word haptizo 
has but one meaning ; which meaning is definite, clear, 
precise, and easy of translation. 

2. That the word haptizo expresses an act^ a definite 
act ; and mode, and nothing but mode — to dip, 

3. That haptizo has the same meaning in figurative as 
in literal use, always referring to the act of dipping. 

128. Will you mention some of the definitions of the 
word haptizo^ as given by immersionist writers ? 

Roger Williams, 1644. " It means to dij^, and noth- 
ing but to dip." 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 67 

A. R, 1644. " Dipping is baptizing, and baptizing is 
dipping." 

JjR. Gale, 1711. "Dipping only is baptism." 

A. Booth, 171]. '' The primary sense of the term is to 
dip." 

F. A. Cox, 1824. "The idea of dipping is in every 
instance." 

De. Caeson, 1853. *'My position is, that it always 
signifies to dip / never expressing any thing but mode." 

De. Fullee, 1859. " Dip, sink, plunge, immerse." 

De. Conant, 1860. "This verb baptizo has, in fact, 
but one sole acceptation. It signifies literally and 
always to plunge*'^ 

De. Ceamp, 1866. "Every body admits that the 
natural meaning of the word is to hnmerseP 

Baptist Confessioi^ of Faith. "Baptizing is dip- 
ping, and dipping is baptizing." 

129. What points of importance are specially apparent 
in the definitions of immersionist authorities as just 
quoted ? 

1. That the word haptizo is claimed by immersionists 
to have in all the range of Greek literature one meaning, 
and only one. 

2. It is claimed, with great unanimity, that the word 
haptizo expresses the action of putting under water ; and 
that action only. 

3. It is affirmed that the word haptizo does not ex- 
press the condition of being under water. 

130. What important distinction do we need here to 
keep in sight ? 

1. Our investigation demands that we must not lose 
sight of the difierence between the action of putting un- 
der water, and the condition of being under water. A 
word that expresses such an act^ and a word that ex- 
presses such a condition, are separated from each other by 
an essential difierence of nature. They belong to difie- 
rent classes of verbs. These two views do not coincide 



68 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

in one clear and precise meaning, but are essentially 
diverse and irreconcilable. Dip has a development 
growing out of its peculiarities as an act ; immerse has a 
development which is based on condition. These terms, 
therefore, are not synonymous. " I have been dipped 
into water ;" " I was immersed in water ;" express ideas 
essentially diverse. The structure of language is con- 
trolled by such differences. Dip expresses the course of 
action by which one was put into water. Immerse says 
nothing about the course of action, and only indicates 
the condition of being under water. It is important not 
to confound act and condition, and not to treat one word 
as though it expressed both act and condition, or at one 
time act, and at another time condition. 

2. We may affirm that the word haptizo has not been 
used to express the contradictory qualities of action and 
condition. It is apparent that immersionist writers agree 
in claiming for that word the meaning of action, and 
that alone. Words that express action and condition 
belong to two distinct classes. Each class has its own 
deeply marked and broadly distinguishing characteris- 
tics. The word haptizo can not belong to both these 
classes. 

131. Why is it important to keep these points promi- 
nently in view ? 

The whole immersionist structure depends upon these 
special points. If it can be shown that the w^ord haptizo 
expresses the action of putting under w^ater, and that 
action definitely, precisely, and clearly, and that action 
only, as immersionists claim, then their position would 
seem to be impregnable. If, on the other hand, it can 
be shown that the word haptizo expresses condition in- 
stead of action, the immersionist fabric has not a single 
prop upon which to stand. 

XXIX. — Meaning of Woeds. 

132. Before passing on to the further investigation of 
the word haptizo^ will you state the peculiar assumption 



I 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 69 

of immersionists in reference to the one meaning of words, 
and esjDecially the word haptizo ? 

Immersionists affirm {^Cramp*s Catechism^ page 31) 
that " every word has one natural, obvious, original 
meaning, which will be applied to it by all readers or 
hearers, and Avith which it will be used by speakers and 
writers. From that natural and primary sense other ac- 
ceptations or uses may branch out, but they will imply or 
include the original idea." In accordance with this 
opinion, it is claimed that the word haptizo has "just its 
own meaning, and no other;" namely, the actionof put- 
ting under water. {Oramp^s Catechism^ ipB^ge 32,) The 
exigency of the immersionist creed demands that with 
unfaltering pertinacity this position must be retained. 

133. Is that theory correct? 

The most eminent scholars have given testimony, clear 
and abundant, that words may have various and some- 
times opposite significations. 

134. Can you furnish evidence to sustain that view ? 
1. W. P. Strickland, {Manual of Biblical Literature^ 

pp. 57-60 :) '' Words, considered simply as sounds, have 
no meaning ; for they are not the natural and necessary 
signs of things, but conventional ones. Usage or custom 
has constituted a connection between words and ideas. 
The connection between words and ideas is now ren- 
dered necessary by usage, whatever may have been the 
case at first. This does not mean, however, that a word 
may have only one meaning, for usage contradicts this. 
Usage, which is the law of language, has gradually as- 
signed many meanings to the same word, lest words 
should be indefinitely multiplied, and the difficulty of 
learning a language become too great. The way to de- 
termine the U8US loquendi is by taking into account the 
religion, sect, education, common life, civil affiiirs, etc., 
all of which have an influence on an author's language, 
and characterize it. The same word is employed in one 
sense respecting the ordinary things of life ; in another, 
respecting the things of religion; in another still, in 



70 A cATECHis:^: of baptis:^:. 

the schools of philosophy. . . . The interpreter is not 

to be guided in his work by the analogy of ftiith 

With many, the analogy of faith is all the rule of inter- 
pretation they have ; and this, instead of being a scrip- 
tural analogy, is nothing more or less than a sectarian 

analogy With such, the voice of their church is 

the voice of God, and not the voice of the living oracles." 

2. Trench, ( The Study of Words : ) " It will often 
happen that you will meet in books, sometimes in the 
same book, and perhaps in the same page of this book, a 
word used in senses so far apart from one another, that 
it will seem to you at first sight almost absurd to assume 
as possible that there can be any bond of connection 
between them." 

3. Sir William Hamilton, {Logic:) "All languages 
by the same word express a multitude of thoughts more 
or less differing from one another." 

4. C. H. Spurgeon, {Excellent Thoughts for Young 
3Iinisters:) ''Rest assured, in Holy Scripture, the same 
word does not always mean the same thing," 

135. What point is indicated by these quotations? 
That the immersionist declaration that the word hap- 

tizg has one definite, precise, and clear meaning, and one 
only, is contrary to all experience ; and improbable, if 
not untrue. 

XXX. — Classic Baptism. 

136. What is the classic meaning oi JBajytizo ? 

The word haptizo in classic Greek has various signifi- 
cations ; but whatever shade of meaning may be appa- 
rent, it always expresses a change of condition. This 
change of condition maybe effected by various agencies 
and in different ways. But, whatever peculiarity of 
mode may have obtained, the use of the word haptizo 
always carries with it the idea of condition. It belongs 
to a clearly marked class. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 71 

137. How can you demonstrate the correctness of this 
position ? 

By appealing to any passage of classic Greek in 
which the word is used, there is at once a clear and 
adequate solution revealed. 

138. How can you show that the immersionist theory 
of a definite act is erroneous ? 

By appealing in the same manner to any passage 
of classic Greek in which the word occurs, the definite 
act idea is found to be without foundation. 

139. What becomes of the dipping theory when tried 
by the same standard ? 

1. If it be true that the word haptizo expresses always 
a change of condition^ and not the action of putting 
under, then it is evident that the word haptizo does not 
express the idea of dipping. 

2. Immerse and di}^ are interchanged at will and 
confounded together by immersionist writers. There 
is no valid authority for so doing. Dip performs an 
act that is transitory. It does not put its object in a 
new state or condition. We may speak of the laying 
of the Atlantic cable, which involved its immersion, but 
no person educated or uneducated would speak of " dip- 
ping" the Atlantic cable to the bottom of the ocean. If 
a portion of the earth had remained covered with the 
sea since the morning of creation, it can not be said to 
have been "dipped" all that time, though for thousands 
of years it may have been immersed. 

140. By what peculiar modes may that change of con- 
dition indicated by the word haptizo be accomplished ? 

1. By plunging, or sinking, or overflowing, the essen- 
tial demand of condition may be scoured. An object 
therefore may be baptized (according to the authority 
of the classic Greek) by being plunged, or sunk, or over- 
flowed. 

2. The same authority shows that by pouring or 



72 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

sprinkling, a change of condition^ which the word haptizo 
expresses, may be effected. An object therefore may be 
baptized by being poured upon or sprinkled. 

141. To Avhat tribunal should we appeal that we may 
test the meaning of the word haptizo? 

We should appeal to the tribunal of usage, which is 
of supreme authority, and the rule in the language. 
Usage is a higher tribunal than the authority of all critics. 

142. What does usage suggest as the classical mean- 
ing of the word haptizo ? 

Usage shows that the word haptizo does not express a 
form of action, and therefore does not mean to dip. Xo 
immersionist writer has yet produced a passage from the 
Greek which shows that the word haptizo means to dip. 
The word hapto means to dip, but haptizo does not mean 
to dip ; and it is the word haptizo — the word used in the 
Scriptures — whose signification is the object of inquiry. 

XXXI. — Modes of Classic Baptism. 

143. How do you ascertain the modes of classic bap- 
tism ? 

By consulting the Greek authors we ascertain in what 
sense the word haptizo was used by them, and what they 
meant by baptism. 

144. Will you give some illustrations ? 

1. Strabo, (14 : 3, 9:) "Alexander falling upon the 
stormy season and trusting commonly to fortune, pressed 
on before the flood went out, and through the entire day 
the army marched baptized {haptizomenoii) up to the 
waist." 

This baptism was by loading^ not dipping. The text 
shows that the army was in a certain state or condition — 
they were wet to the waist. The act that produced this 
wetting was that of wading^ passing through^ or techni- 
cally marching. There was no dipping, or plunging, or 
burying, or watery grave, or liquid tomb here, and yet 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 73 

there was a baptism. What becomes then of the im- 
mersionist chief corner-stone — " through all Greek lite- 
rature the word baptize has one meaning^ and that mean- 
ing is niode^ and nothing hut rnodeP 

2. Heliodorus, {^thiop, 5 : 28:) "Already being 
baptized, (haptizojnenon^ and wanting little of going 
down, some of the pirates at first attempted to pass into 
their own boat." 

This baptism was by a storm dashing the waves and 
spray upon the vessel. There is no dipping here. There 
is no immersion. The ship had not gone down under 
the water, and yet there was a baptism. 

3. DiODORUS SicuLus, (l :) " Of the land animals a 
great part overtaken by the river are destroyed, being 
ba23tized {baptizomena) with water rushing on them." 

There was no dipping or plunging of these animals 
into the water. The water rushed upon them ; and they 
were baptized in that way. 

4. DiODORUS SicuLus, (16 : 80:) "The river rushing 
down with a strong current baptized {ebaptize) many 
with water." 

The water rushed upon them. They were not dipped 
into it. 

5. Joseph., (A. X. 9:) "Baptized {bebaptismejion) by 
intemperance to insensibility and sleep." 

He had not been made intemperate by being dipped, 
or plunged, or immersed into wine. His condition was 
changed by imbibing it, and this was called a baptism. 

6. Alex. Aphrod. Prob., (2:) "A force baptized 
{hehaptis7nene) into the inward parts of the body." 

The word baptized here is used in the sense of diffused 
in. This baptism was not a dipping. 

7. JosEPiius, (De Bello 4:3:) "Those indeed even 
without engaging in a faction baptized (ebcq^tisan) the 
city." 

Josephus in the immediate context shows that this 
baptism means a rushing or pouring in upon ; for he 
4 



74 A CATECHISE OF BAPTISM. 

savs the inhabitants received them all, '^ thinking that 
all who poured themselves in upon the city came from 
good-will to helj) them." The city was not dipped into 
any thing, although it was baptized. There was no 
plunging or immersion of the city under water. 

8. Plutarch, (Par. Gr. and Rom. 3 :) '' He gathers 
the shields of the slain foe, and having baptized (papAi- 
sas) his hand into the blood, he reared a troj^hy, and 
wrote upon it." 

Xo jDassage can be quoted which affords a better foun- 
dation for the cJijjp^ing theory than this. Out of more 
than one hundred passages there are only six^-besides 
this which Dr. Conant, an immersionist, translates dip. 
*' That any Baptist writer thoroughly committed to dip- 
ping should be unable to introduce the word on which 
his system hangs in more than one passage in twenty 
is a fact which, of itself, suggests the gravest doubt 
about the justness of such a translation in any case." 

As the passage just quoted from Plutarch is specially 
claimed to sustain the dippincj idea ; and as there is no 
other Greek passage for which the same claim can be 
urged with more plausible pretensions, it invites careful 
consideration. A Roman soldier is left wounded on 
the battle-field. He spends his failing strength in gather- 
ing the armor of his slain enemies to erect a trophy. In 
order that he may write an inscription, " he baptizes his 
hand into the blood." It does not follow that this bap- 
tism was a dipping. The current usage of the word 
does not require such a meaning, and will not warrant 
it. The attempt has been made to ally this phraseology 
w^ith pen-dipping. In pen-dipping, however, the whole 
pen is not immersed ; the point only is dipped in the ink. 
In this case it was not the point of the linger that was 
dipped into blood — the hand was baptized. It is not 
said that he wrote with the same hand that was bap- 
tized. It is quite possible, if not probable, that the 
blood was taken up with the baptized hand, by its being 
scooped up ; and that from it the blood was taken by 
dipping the finger of the other hand into it, and thus 



I 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 75 

writing the inscription. And if he thus scooped up the 
blood in his hand, that would not be dipping. The hand 
may be introduced into a pool of blood in various ways 
other than by dipping. 

9. Chariton Aphrod., (3:4:) "I saw a vessel wan- 
dering in pleasant weather, full of its own storm, and 
baptized {baptizomenon) in a calm." 

There is no dipping here. The waves in a storm 
broke against the vessel. There was no immersion here ; 
the vessel was not under the water ; and yet she was 
baptized. 

10. LiBAKius, {Epist, 25:) "And I am of those 
baptized {bebaptismenoii) by that great wave.'' 

i^o dipping here. ISTo immersion here. The object 
was not plunged, nor dipped, nor immersed into the 
element. It is the element that moves to reach the ob- 
ject. And this is baptism. 

11. Heimerius, (15: 3:) ^' Great at Salamis; for 
there, fighting, he baptized {^ ehaptise^ 2X\. Asia." 

It would be difficult to dip " all Asia," or to plunge 
it, or to immerse it, into the waters of the Gulf Argolis. 
And yet it is said " all Asia " was baptized by fighting ; 
that is, it was subjected to a new state or condition of 
things by a triumphant victory, which gave Greece a 
controlling influence over Asia. There was no dipping 
here, but there was a baptism. And baptism implies 
condition, and not necessarily any action or mode which 
secures that condition. 

12. LiBANius, {Dedamat. 20:) " Salamis was the pin- 
nacle of exploits; where thou didst baptize (^ebaptisas) 
Asia." ^ 

In this passage again it appears that baptism means 
an effect produced, and not an act. Aw immersionist 
w^riter (Gale) contends that a " lake was dipped in the 
blood of a frog," because he would not give up the posi- 
tion of " one meaning, and one meaning only, in the 
whole range of Greek literature," for bap)to, Libanius 



76 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

did not mean that all Asia ^as dipped, or plunged, or 
immersed, though he says it was baptized. 

13. Plotixus, {Ennead. 1, 4, 9:) "But when he does 
not so continue, being baptized {hcqytistheis) by diseases, 
and by arts of wizards." 

There is no dipping here. The man is not dipped into 
diseases, nor into arts. He does not lie on the sea-shore 
until diseases and arts roll over him, like the waves of 
the sea. The diseases, or the arts, or both, have aflected 
the condition or state of the person, hence he is said 
to be baptized. The action belongs to the wizards, and 
the arts, and the diseases ; the ejfect to the person bap- 
tized. 

14. Plutarch, {Galba^ 21:) "Knowing how to be 
licentious, and extravagant, and baptized {bebaptisme- 
Qioji) by debts of fifty millions." 

This person was not dipped into the debts, nor did the 
debts dip him into or under water, or any thing else. 
The debts were a burden, a load upon him. He was not 
immersed in debts, but burdened by debts. He was 
baptized without being dif)ped, or plunged, or immersed 
under water. 

Dr. Conant says : " The ground idea expressed by the 
word haptho is to put into or under vKiter , . . that this 
act is always expressed in the literal application of the 
word." 

Dr. Cramp indorses Dr. Conant. Plutarch, however, 
did not so understand it. He, and the other Greek 
authorities, used the word hcqytizo where there is not even 
a shadow of the idea of being ^9i«i5 into or render loater. 
Plutarch thought men could be baptized by having 
debts pressing upon them. 

15. Themistius, {Oration 20:) "But when she (Plii- 
losophy) sees me baptized (haptizornenori) by grief, and 
carried away into tears, she is displeased." 

The object was not dipped by grief, nor into grief, 
nor into tears. The term " baptized by grief" expressed 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 77 

amoiig the Greeks a condition of sorrow ; and did not 
convey the idea of action or mode. 

16. Achilles Tatius, {Leuc, and Clit 2: 81 :) "But 
Leucippe had another chamber servant, whom, having 
baptized (baplisas) by the same drug, Satyrus comes to 
the door-keeper, at the third door ; and him he cast down 
by the same potion." 

In this passage there is shown a coiidition of stupefac- 
tion, to which one had been brought by a soporific drug, 
by which he was "cast down." There was a baptism, 
but that baptism did not imply action. The drug did 
not lay hold of the person and dip, or j)lunge, or immei-se 
her. [N'evertheless the immersionist creed claims that 
the word haptizo has " one meaning, and one only." 

17. Athejst^us, {Philos, Banq, 5 : 64 :) '' You seem to 
me, O convivialists ! to be flooded beyond expectation 
with impetuous words, and to be baptized (hehaptisthai) 
by unmixed wine," 

This baptism expresses the condition of drunkenness 
through unmixed w^ine. This company of convivialists 
had not been dipped into unmixed wine. N^or were they 
immersed into unmixed wine, nor were they sunk in it, 
nor drowned in it. They were simply under the influ- 
ence of wine. The word haptizo expressed the eflect of 
the wine, and not the special mode in which the wine 
was applied or used. 

18. CoNO>^, {Narrat. L, :) "Thebe exhorted to the 
murder, and having baptized (baptisasa) and put to sleep 
Alexander by much wine." 

This passage shows that tlie word haptizo here im- 
plies the condition of drunkenness. Alexander was 
made drunk, and put to sleep, by much wine. The im- 
mersionist creed, Avhich contends that haptizo has one 
meaning^ and one only^ in all Greek literature, must, of 
course, declare that Alexander was dipped or immersed 
into the wine, rather than that the wine was poured into 
him. If " haptizo means mode, and nothing but mode," 
as immersionists aflirm, of course Alexander was made 



78 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

drunk by being dipped, or plunged, or immersed into his 
wine-glass, or his decanter, or his cask. The immersion- 
ist creed is inexorable in its demands, and however im- 
probable or absurd those demands may be, its advocates 
must accept them, or abandon the field as lost. 

The mode whereby this baptism wa^ effected is indi- 
cated ; not, however, by the word haptizo^ but by the 
connection in which it stands. That mode was drinking. 
The mind and the body are baptized by drinking from 
the wine-cup. There was no immersion here, no dip- 
ping, no plunging ; but simply the pouring the element 
into the mouth. He was subjected to a condition of 
drunkenness and sleep, through the mode of pouring. 

19. HoMEPwic Allegories, (p. 495:) "Since, now, a 
mass of iron, pervaded with fire, drawn out of the fur- 
nace, is baptized {haptizetai) by water, and the heat, by 
its own nature quenched by water, ceases." 

This passage is claimed by immersionists as showing 
the plunging process. The grammatical structure of the 
sentence indicates that there is no plunging here. Of 
course water is capable of receiving hot iron by plung- 
ing, and hot iron is frequently plunged in water, but it 
does not follow that there is plunging in this case. The 
word baptizo does not express the idea of plunging. Hot 
iron may be wet or may be immersed without having 
been plunged. And the phraseology in this passage in- 
dicates the agency by which the result is accomplished, 
and not the element in which it is done. Hot iron may 
be brought into a cold condition by being plunged into 
water, or by having water poured over it, or by being 
sprinkled with water. It often happens that heated 
iron can not be physically plunged into water, or im- 
mersed, on account of its weight, or form, or because of 
some other peculiarity. 

-20. Plato, {Euthydemus^ 1 :) " I, knowing that the 
youth was baptized, {baptizo77ienon,) wishing to relieve 
him." 

Cleinias, a youth, in company with some sophists, was 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 79 

bewildered with a series of subtle questions. This be- 
wilderment was called baptism. The young man was 
not dipped, nor plunged, into the questions addressed to 
him. There is no immersion into water here. He was 
in a condition of bewilderment, and Plato calls that a 
baptism. 

21. Plutarch, {Alexander^ 57:) ''Soldiers baptizing 
{baptizontes) with bowls, and cups, and flagons, along 
the whole way, pledging one another out of large wine 
jars, and mixing vessels." 

Plutarch refers to the riotous and drunken march of 
Alexander's army from, their Eastern conquests, and to 
the fact that they had been made drunk by excess of 
wine. There was no dii^ping in this baptism ; the wine 
was poured. 

22. Plutarch, {Water and Land Anim,^ 23 :) "The 
nobleman being sober, as you see, and prepared, sets 
upon us, debauched and baptized (hehaptisraenois) from 
yesterday." 

In this passage a contrast is shown between one in a 
condition of sobriety, and others in a condition of ine- 
briety. It is difficult to see how this baptism could have 
been dipping, or how those who were baptized from yes- 
terday could have been immersed during that time, or 
could have been dipped during that time. The immer- 
sionist who can see a resemblance between the action of 
drinking and the action of dipping must look through 
a medium peculiarly his own. 

23. Plutarch, (Fhys. Ques,^ 10 :) " Why do they 
pour in beside the wine sea-water, and say that fisher- 
men received an oracle, commanding to baptize {papti- 
zein) Bacchus by the sea ?" 

As Bacchus has no personality, and is a representative 
for wine, this is a command to baptize wine. This passage 
shows that the wine was baptized by pouring the water 
into it. Water poured into wine would change its con- 
dition — take away its intoxicating quality. Such bap- 
tism is in perfect accord with the idea of baptizing hot 



80 A CATECUISM OF BAPTISM. 

iron by pouring water on it ; it brings it into a new con- 
dition. It is also in harmony with the exposition given 
of baptism by pouring wine into a man ; it changes his 
condition ; from having been sober he has become 
drunken. 

24. Plutarch, {Sujyerstition^ 3 :) " Call the purifying 
Old Woman, and baptize {ha2:)tiso7i) thyself (going) to 
the sea." 

This is a religious baptism. There is nothing in the 
23assage that indicates the mode of action. The fact that 
the baptism was by the sea does not prove plunging, or 
immersion, or dij^ping in it ; for Bacchus was baptized by 
the sea without either of those modes. The sea-water 
may have been used by sprinkling or pouring, or wasli- 
ing the hands, or by drinking, or in any otlier way by 
which religious purification would be secured. In Hin- 
dostan, Ganges water is put into the mouth of the dying 
as an act of purifying them for death. '' There is nothing 
in classic usage to prevent haptizo meaning to pur if ij by 
the sprinkling or drinking of sea-water, any more than 
to mean to intoxicate., or baptize, by drinking wine. 
Palinurus was baptized into sleep by sprinkling his tem- 
ples with Lethean dew." 

Plutarch says : " The priests in Egypt besprinkle 
themselves, not with any water, but with that of which 
they believe that Isis drank." Dale says, in his com- 
ment on this passage : " The term baptism is not applied 
to this transaction ; but I affirm that a state of complete 
purification., induced by the sprinkling of Ihis water, is 
as legitimate and true a baptism, interpreted by classic 
Greek, as Avould be a state of complete covering of their 
bodies, bj'' their being sunk to the bottom of the Nile. 
Sprinkling demands, not as of grace, but as of absolute 
right, the acknowledgment of its power to baptize." 

145. What results are apparent from the examples ad- 
duced of classic baptism ? 

1. Usage, which is higher authority than lexicons or 
lexicographers, shows that tlie word baptizo has been 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 81 

used, in the twenty-four instances cited, where it does 
not mean to dip, 

2. Usage shows that the word haptizo does not, in the 
passages adduced, express definite action of any kind. 

3. The word haptizo expresses a change of condition^ 
either physical, intellectual, moral, or ceremonial. 

4. The word haptizo does not indicate the "inode by 
which the act of baptism is effected. 

5. The word haptizo has many significations, adjusting 
itself to the most diverse cases. 

6. The key whereby the word haptizo may be inter- 
preted is condition. 



XXXII. — Imjiersio:n^ist Inconsistencies. 

146. Will you state some of the definitions given by 
leading immersionist authorities in reference to the word 
haptizo ? 

Baptist Confessjon of Faith : " Baptizing is dip- 
ping, and dipping is baptizing." 

Alexander Carson, LL.D., Baptist Board of Pub- 
lication : " To dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek 
literature." 

T. J. CoNANT, D.D., Baptist Bihle Union : " Baptizo 
has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies lite- 
rally and always to plunge.^'* 

Dr. Conant, again: ''The literal meaning of this 
word, its true and only import, is, to immerseJ^ 

Dr. Conant, again : '' To immerse, immerge, sub- 
merge, dip, plunge, imbathe, whelm." 

Dr. Conant, again : " The meaning of the word was 
clear, definite, always the same, and one of the easiest 
words to translate." 

147. Is Dr. Conant a recognized authority among im- 
mersionists ? 



82 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

Dr. Conant has labored in behalf of the " American 
Bible Union " in preparing for the press the new Baptist 
version of the Scriptures. He has been successful in 
making the new version teach, as no other version does, 
the dogma of immersion. He has bestowed great labor 
in collecting passages in Greek literature in which the 
word baptizo is found. And, though his reasonings 
have been inaccurate, and his conclusions erroneous, he 
has, nevertheless, contributed A^aluable materials, and has 
made them the subject of elaborate study. No writer 
has appeared in the immersionist school better qualified 
than he for the investigation of this subject. 

148. What inconsistencies are apparent in the defini- 
tions just quoted ? 

1. The w^ant of accord, apparent in the definitions 
just given, indicates that the immersionist theory, re- 
specting the word baptizo^ is inconsistent and erroneous. 

2. Dr. Conant says, in one place: ^'Baptizo has, in 
fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies literally and 
always to plunge,''^ In another place, he says: *'The 
literal meaning of this word, its true and only import is, 
to immersed Here is a grave and fatal inconsistency. 
The words plunge and immerse are not synonymous. A 
ship may plunge among the waves, and not be immersed. 
An island may be immersed by being overflowed with 
the swollen waters of a river, without having been 
plunged. If the immersionist definition of baptizo were 
true, it would not involve such contradictions. The truth 
is never inconsistent with itself. 

3. Dr. Conant, again, says: "The meaning of the 
word was clear, definite, always the same, and one of 
the easiest words to translate." And, in another defini- 
tion, he says : " To put into or under water." If this 
word is so easy to translate, and has always the same 
clear, definite meaning, why does not Dr. Conant say 
whether it means into or under ? Does he not know 
w^hich ? Or, does it mean sometimes one, and sometimes 
the other; without having a fixed meaning? Or, does 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 83 

it mean both ? Being into any thing, or under it, does 
not convey the same " one, clear, definite idea." Going 
into the water does not involve going under it. The im- 
mersionist rule of interpretation is seriously defective in 
its working. 

4. If, as Dr. Conant says, the meaning of haptizo is 
" clear, definite, and always the same, and one of the 
easiest words to translate ;" and if it means " to dip^ and 
nothing but dip^ through all Greek literature ;" how are 
we to account for the fact that, in another definition, 
Dr. Conant gives the word haptizo seven difierent mean- 
ings? And if the first of those seven words is the 
" clear," " definite," and " sole accejDtation " of haptizo^ 
why are we to believe that the other six words are also, 
each, the clear, definite, and sole acceptation of haptizo ? 
Or, if any one of those seven words is the clear, definite, 
and sole acceptation of haptizo^ why give seven differ- 
ent words ? The theory out of which grow such incon- 
sistencies must be radically wrong. 

149. What does Dr. Cramp affirm of the word hap- 
tizo ? 

Dr. Cramp says : " Every body admits that the natu- 
ral meaning of the word is to imnierse,'^'^ He also says : 
" No learned man will risk his reputation by affirming 
the contrary," 

150. Will you give the testimony of some eminent 
scholar, to show the incorrectness and absurdity of Dr. 
Cramp's teachings ? 

Timothy Dwight, S.T.D., LL.D., late President of 
Yale College^ says : " Concerning the former of thcfec 
subjects I observe, that the body of learned critics and 
lexicographers declare that the original meaning of both 
these words {haptizo and hapto) is to tinge^ stain^ dye^ 
or color ; and that, when it means immersion, it is only 
in a secondary and occasional sense; derived from the 
fact that such things as are dyed^ stained^ or colored^ are 
often immersed for this end. This interpretation of the 



8i A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

words also they support by such a series of quotations 
as seem unanswerably to evince that this was the origi- 
nal, classical meaning of these words. 

'' I have examined almost one hundred instances, in 
which the word haptizo^ and its derivatives, are used in 
the Xew Testament, and four in the Septuagint ; these, 
so far as I have observed, being all the instances con- 
tained in both. By this examination it is to my appre- 
hension evident that the following things are true : 

1. ''That the primary meaning of these terms is 
cleansing; the effect, not the mode, of washing. 

2. '' That the mode is usually referred to incidental- 
ly^ wherever these words are mentioned ; and that this 
is always the case, wherever the ordinance of baptism is 
mentioned, and a reference made at the same time to the 
mode of administration. 

3. " That these words, although often capable of de- 
noting any mode of washing, whether by affusion, 
sprinkling, or immersion, (since cleansing was familiar- 
ly accomplished by the Jews in all these ways ;) yet, in 
many instances, can nat without obvious impropriety be 
made to sisrnify immersion; and in others can not sig- 
nify it at afl." " 

XXXIII. — Testimony of Christian Gkeek Authors. 

151. "What testimony do Christian Greek authors 
give as to the meaning of the word haptizo ? 

The Greek Christians of the first century followed the 
sacred writers in their use of religious terms. An ex- 
amination of their works will show that they used the 
word haptizo^ when they did not mean to plunge, or dip, 
or immerse ; but in the sense of affusion. 

152. Will you give some illustrations ? 

1. Clemext, of Alexandria, the most renowned Cliris- 
tian writer of the second century, says, {Stromat. lib. 4 :) 
" And this it would seem is the image of baptism, (5a/>- 



I 



1 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 85 

tismatos^) which from Moses has been handed down from 
the poets after this manner. Penelope, 

* In waters washed, and clad in vestments pure,' 

goes forth to prayer. But Telemachus, 

* Laving Ms hands in tlie gray sea, to Pallas prayed.' 

" This was the custom of the Jews, that they also 
should be often baptized {baptizes thai) on their couch." 

Clement could not have meant immersed, or plunged, 
or dipped on their couches. 

2. Origen^, another Greek writer, of great talents and 
learning, uses the word baptizo to describe the pouring 
of the water upon the wood by order of Elijah. He 
says, (Comment on John :) '' Hoav came you to think 
that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who 
did not in Ahab's time baptize the wood upon the altar, 
which was to be washed before it was burnt by the 
Lord's appearing in fire ? But he ordered the priests to 
do that ; not once only, but says. Do it the second time, 
and they did it the second time ; and. Do it the third 
time, and they did it the third time. He, therefore, that 
did not himself baptize them, but assigned that work to 
others, how was he likely to baptize, when he, according 
to Malachi's prophecy, should come ?" 

Origen says that Elijah ordered the priests to baptize 
the wood ; and by what mode was this baptism done ? 
The inspired word says, (1 Kings 18 : 33 :) ''He put the 
wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid 
him on the wood, and said. Fill four barrels with wa- 
ter, and ^Oi^r it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the w^ood." 

3. John Damascenus : " John (Baptist) was baptized 
{ebaptisthe) by placing his hand on the head of his di- 
vine Master, and by his own blood." Again, this writer 
speaks of " the baptism {baptisma) by blood and mar- 
tyrdom by which Christ was baptized (ebaptizeto) for us." 

4. Athanasius mentions several baptisms, of w^hich 
one is the baptism of Moses in the sea, another is the 



86 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

ceremonial cleansing practised by the Jews, and another 
is the baptism of tears. 

5. Gregory Naziaxzen: "I know of a fourth bap- 
tism, that by martyrdom and blood; and I know of a 
fifth, that of tears." 

6. Ambrose : " He who desired to be purified with a 
typical baptism was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb 
by means of a bunch of hysso})." Sprinkling with blood 
was a typical purification, but not a typical dipping or 
immersion. 

7. If these learned fi^ithers understood their own moth- 
er tongue, then the purifications practised by the pour- 
ing of water on the altar, and the falling of tears on the 
face, and the flowing of one's own blood upon a part of 
his body, were correctly called baptisms. 

XXXIV.— The Baptism of Blood. 

153. What is the testimony of the Scriptures, as to 
the meaning of haptizo^ and the baptism of blood ? 

In this work it has already been shown, pages 13-16, 
that the word baptizo is sometimes used in the Bible 
when it could not possibly have meant to plunge, or dip, 
or immerse. Further testimony may be adduced to es- 
tablish the same point. Additional proof is available to 
show that the Greek word for baptize, or baptism, is 
used in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, as a 
religious act^ in the sense of purifying, or cleansing, or 
washing. 

154. Can you give some illustrations? 

1. Christ said to his disciples, (Luke 12 : 50 :) "I have 
a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I strait- 
ened till it be accomplished." This language will apply 
to his agony in the garden, when " liis sweat was, as it 
were, great drops of blood;" and to the wounds inflicted 
on him, by which his sacred body was stained with 
blood. The early Christian writers abound with similar 



i 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 87 

phraseology in speaking of the martyrs who were, they 
say, " baptized with their own blood." This could not 
mean a plunging, or dipping, or immersion. 

2. Some immersionist, or rather some plunging au- 
thorities, who make baptism always mean plunging, de- 
mand that " we must imagine a plunging even here." 
Immersionists, of course, bow to the demand. As it is 
asserted that baptism always means plunging, they 
must, therefore, "imagine" that our Lord, and the noble 
army of martyrs, must have been, each, plunged in his 
own blood. Others will rather say that the creed, whose 
demands are so humiliating to the logical sense, and to 
a discriminating imagination, must be unreasonable, and 
unworthy of acceptance. The plunging rendering of 
the passage just quoted is : " I have a plunging to be 
plunged with; and how am I straitened till it be ac- 
complished." 

3. In Rev. 19:13, it is said : " He was clothed with a 
vesture dipped (baptized) in blood," that is, bespattered, 
sprinkled, spotted, or stained with blood. The vesture 
had not been plunged into blood, but blood had been 
shed upon it, and thus it was baptized with blood* This 
passage is precisely parallel to Isaiah 63 : 3 : " And their 
blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will 
stain all my raiment." 

XXXV. — Religious Purification. 

155. What relationship exists in the Scriptures be- 
tween baptizing and purifying ? 

Baptizing, when mentioned in the Scriptures, as a re- 
ligious act, signifies to purify, or cleanse, or wash ; 
whether it be the baptism with water, or the real, in- 
ward purification of the Holy Ghost, of which water 
baptism is the outward symbol. 

156. How can it be proved that the term purifying is 
synonymous with baptizing ? 



88 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

By comparing Scripture with Scripture, and allowing 
the Holy Spirit to be his own interpreter. 

1. In John 3 : 25, it is said: "Then there arose a 
question between some of John's disciples and the Jews 
about purifying." The context shows plainly that the 
question was about baptism. The answer given by John 
to his disciples admits of no other interpretation. 

2. If to baptize does not mean to purify, cleanse, 
wash, we can not understand the question which the 
Jews, who had come from Jerusalem, put to John, nor 
John's answer to it, namely : " Why baptizest thou then 
if thou art not that Christ ?" It never had been predict- 
ed that the Messiah would immerse, but that he would 
purify. 

Isaiah 52 : 15 : ''So shall he sprinkle many nations." 

Ezekiel 36:25: " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, 
and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." 

Malachi 3 : 2, 3 : '^ JJut who may abide the day of his 
coming ? and who shall stand when he appeareth ? for 
he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap : And he 
shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silvers and he shall 
purify the sons of Levi." ' 

iSTumbers 8:7: '' And thus shalt thou do unto them, 
to cleanse them : Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." 

3. When the Jewish authorities, therefore, saw that 
John purified the people symbolically with water, and 
at the same time confessed that he was not the Christ, 
it was natural that they should ask John, " Why bap- 
tizest (purifiest) thou then ?" John's answer is consis- 
tent with the import of the question, as if he had said : 
'' Do not imagine that I am the great Purifier promised 
by the prophets : I baptize (purify) only with water, but 
he shall baptize (purify) with the Holy Ghost. He, and 
he only, can work in you a complete change of condi- 
tion. He shall change the heart through the renewing 
energy of the Holy Ghost, and that is the real baptism." 

4. The Old Testament service is described, in He- 



•I 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 89 

brews 9 : 10, as consisting in meats and drinks, and 
divers washings (baptisms, in the Greek,) and carnal 
ordinances. These " divers baptisms " were purifica- 
tions of various kinds — sprinklings and washings, of 
which the Apostle speaks in the context, (ver. 13:) 
" Sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of 
the flesh." Again, he says, (ver. 19:) "Moses .... 
sprinkled all the people." And again, he says, (ver. 
21 :) "Moreover, he sprinkled .... all the A^essels 
of the ministry." And again, he adds, (ver. 23 :) " It 
was therefore necessary that the patterns of things 
in the heavens should be purified with these." By 
allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, and by exa- 
mining the passages which prescribe these ceremonies, 
(see pages 6 and 7,) we And that these baptisms could 
not possibly, in any instance, have been by immersion, 
or plunging, or dipping, and that the baptism in He- 
brews 9 : 10 does not mean immersion. 

5. That baptizing is synonymous with purifying is 
further apparent from the teachings of Mark 7 : 3, 4 ; 
and Luke 11 : ^8. In Mark 7 : 3, 4, it is said: "For 
the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their 
hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 
And when they come from the market, except they 
wash (baptize themselves) they eat not. And many- 
other things there be, which they have received to hold, 
as the washing (baptizing) of cups, and pots, and brazen 
vessels, and tables." In Luke 11 : 38, the washing of 
hands is called baptizing: "And when the Pharisee 
saw it, he marvelled that he (Jesus) had not first 
washed (baptized himself) before dinner." 

The word rendered " tables," in our version in Mark, 
means also " beds " or "couches." This is admitted 
by Dr. Cramp in his correspondence. [Chris. Jless,^ 
Feb, 22, 1865.) The beds "were wooden structures, 
from eight to twenty feet in length, about four feet 
wide, and about three or four feet high." Horxe says : 
"In later times their couches were splendid, and the 
frames inlaid with ivory, and the coverlets rich. On 



90 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

these sofiis, in the latter ages of the Jewish state — the 
very period to which this passage refers — they univer- 
sally reclined when taking their meals." 

6. The immersionist theory, which requires baptism 
always to mean j^lunging under water, requires all 
these persons, pots, brazen vessels, tables, beds, couches, 
etc., of all the thousands of Jewish families and house- 
holds to be repeatedly plunged under water. This 
demand of the immersionist creed is extravagant and 
repulsive. In summer and in winter, in sickness and 
in health, their eating must be preceded by the inevita- 
ble and ever-recurring plunging of themselves, their 
beds, couches, etc., under water, l^o matter how im- 
probable, or absurd, or unscriptural all this may be, 
immersionists must cling to their idea. They can not 
afford to allow that haptizo ever means any thing else 
but plunging under water. If that creed gives up one 
point, every thing is lost. Dr. Cramp perceives these 
difficulties that crowd around his creed, and condescends 
to bow to the absurdity of saying, ( Chris, Mess.^ Feb, 
22, 1865 :) "In whatever way it may be translated, or 
whether we are to believe that ' beds,' ' couches,' or 
Hables' are referred to, those articles were treated in 
the same manner as the ' cups, pots, and brazen vessels ;' 
that is, they were immersed. They underwent a haptis- 
onos^ and hajytismos^ as the Greek Lexicon (Liddell and 
Scott) says, and every scholar knows, means 'a dip- 
ping.' " That Dr. Cramp and his creed are both wrong 
is evident, first, from the inspired word, which shows 
that these baptisms were always performed by sprink- 
ling ; and secondly, from the law of common sense, 
which is never antagonistic to the law of God. 

7. J. H. GoDvvix, {Notes on 3Tark :) "This (Mark 
7 : 4) is one of the three passages in the ]S"ew Testament 
which refer to Jewish baptisms, and show that, what- 
ever may have been the primary meaning of the word, 
it had become the name of a class of purifications^ distin- 
guished by their importance, and not by the mode of 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM:. 91 

their performance. Nothing is more common in all lan- 
guages than the change through new usages of the pri- 
mary signification of words. From Hebrews 9 : 10 it 
appears that the purifications appointed hy law for the 
service of the tabernacle were called baptisms ; but 
none of these were immersions. Here the name is given 
to purifications of the person, observed by all the people 
of Judea when they came from the market ; and to the 
purifications of couches also. But the practice of im- 
mersion is unmentioned, unparalleled, and almost im- 
possible." 

8. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament shows that 
to baptize and to purify are synonymous; and that to 
baptize could not mean to dip, or plunge, or immerse. 
The Apocrypha was written by Jews who were well 
acquainted with the personal washings prescribed in the 
ceremonial law, and w^ho used the dialect in which the 
New Testament was written. 

In Judith 12 : 7, it is shown, by the literal translation, 
that ''she baptized herself in the camp, at a fountain of 
water." The context show-s that " garrisons had been 
set over the fountain." There is no probability that this 
high-born, refined lady disrobed in the presence of the 
soldiers and immersed herself. She had gone to baptize 
as a preparation for prayer, and the custom of that peo- 
ple required, not immersion, but the washing of face, 
and hands, and feet only, as the baptism necessary for 
prayer. 

^ In Ecclesiasticus 34 : 25, it is said : " He that bap- 
tizeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he 
touch it again, what availeth his washing?" Here 
haptizo is used in the sense of washing. A reference to 
the law for the purification of those who were defiled 
by touching a dead body shows that there was no 
plunging or immersion here, but that this baptism was 
by sprinkling. 

157. How does it appear further that this purification 
aces not moan immersion ? 



92 A CATECHIS:^l OF BAPTISM. 

There is no passage of Scripture that indicates that 
immersion is a scriptural mode of purification or cleans- 
ing or washing ; but numerous passages show that it is 
by affusion that this purification of both the bodies and 
the souls of men is accomjDlished. 

XXXYI. — Xaaaiax the Syeiax. 

158. How was Xaaman, the leper of Syria, cleansed of 
his leprosy ? 

He was cleansed by observing the law specially ap- 
pointed for such cases. (See pages 14 and 15.) 

159. What was that law ? 

The law is found in Leviticus 14:7: '' And he shall 
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the lepro- 
sy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean." 

160. Was there any other way of curing the leprosy? 
There was only one way of curing the leprosy, and 

that was by following the divinely appointed directions. 
The leprous j^erson must submit to God's plan, and be 
sprinkled seven times. 

161. To whom did this law concerning the cure of 
leprosy apply ? 

To all who were afflicted with the disease, whether 
they were strangers or home-born, bond or free. 

162. How can you prove that ? 

By passages of Scripture which show that God's laws 
were meant for general recognition and acceptance. 
Though the commandments were given in the midst 
of Israel, and specially for that people, yet they are 
meant for alh The leprosy of either body or soul can 
be cured in only one way — by special compliance with 
God's plan. There is no other way. This will apply to 
the stranger or the home-born, to the Jew or the Gen- 
tile. In Leviticus 24 : 22 it is said, after giving the law 
concerning various feasts, sacrifices, priests, murders, 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 93 

sin-offerings, nncleannesses, and leprosy : " Ye shall have 
one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one 
of your own country ; for I am the Lord your God." 

163. What does Dr. Cramp say of N"aaman ? 

Dr. Cramp admits ((7or. Chris. Mess,^ January 11, 
1865, and Catechism^ p. 72) that "Naaman was a leper," 
and that "lepers were cleansed by sprinkling." He 
evidently found the leper an unpleasant subject to han- 
dle, and was compelled to resort to some weak and 
transparent sophistry and special pleading. He says 
Naaman's cleansing was not '' a legal cleansing ; it was, 
so to speak, outside of the law. It is useless to say that 
*no law required him to be immersed.' He was not 
cleansed according to the law, for he was not under it." 
" It was a case of miraculous interference above and 
beyond the law." 

164. What proof does Dr. Cramp give to sustain his 
position respecting Naaman ? 

Dr. Cramp offers not one word of proof to sustain his 
assertion. He can not produce one word from the 
Bible to show that Naaman might be cleansed from the 
leprosy in a different way from any one else. The Bible 
reveals only one Avay. Though Naaman was a great 
man, he had to observe God's requirements if he desired 
and would secure his blessing. Though Naaman was 
not one of God's people, yet he went to an inspired 
servant of the Lord, whose duty it was to teach and to 
practise the law of God ; and he went to him to be 
cured in the way that God's servant would direct. 
There was a well-known law that exactly met Naaman's 
case. He came as a strano-er, it is true ; but God had 
said, (Numbers 9 : 14 :) "Ye shall have one ordinance, 
both for the stranger and for him that was born in the 
land." There was no "miraculous interference above 
and beyond the law," as Dr. Cramp imagines ; none was 
needed. An existing long-established law, applicable 
to " the stranger" and to " him that was born in the 



94 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 



land," exactly met the necessities of the case. 
Naaman "sprinkle himself seven times," and the 



Let 
the won- 
drous power of God will be seen. This sprinkling is 
called baptism. 

165. How do you prove that Naaman sprinkled him- 
self seven times ? 

He was made clean ; and the Scriptures show that 
his disease could not have been cured except he had 
been sprinkled seven times. In 2 Kings 5 : 14, it is said : 
''He dipped himself seven times." In the original 
Greek it is : '' He baptized himself seven times." The 
inspired word shows that this baptism must have been 
sprinkling. Dr. Cramp asserts that he immersed him- 
self seven times, because the Greek word used is haptizo. 
There could have been no cure for the leprous man if he 
had failed to sprinkle himself seven times, as God's law 
required. 

166. Why does Dr. Cramp assume that there was an 
immersion here ? 

He can not help it. He must do that or give up his 
creed. He must contend that there was a miracle in 
the case, and that sprinkling, which was the established 
and well-known symbol of cleansing and blessing, must 
be set aside, and that immersion, a new mode, was in 
this case employed ; or otherwise it would be apparent 
that sprinkling was the mode whereby Naaman was 
baptized. 

XXXVII. — Greek Church Baptism. 

167. What does Dr. Cramp assert concerning the 
Greek Church? 

Dr. Cramp says, ( Catechism^ p. 45 :) " Has the Greek 
Church ever sustained sprinkling or pouring ? No. I 
was about to say that this is remarkable. But it is not 
remarkable. The New Testament was written in Greek. 
In speaking of baptism the Apostles used the Greek word 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 95 

baptizo. Christians nowadays differ in opinion as to 
the meaning of that word. What can be fairer than to 
submit the question to the Greeks themselves ? They 
must surely understand their own language. Now the 
Greeks have always held baptism to be immersion, and 
they have practised accordingly. They do so to this 
day, even during the severity of a Russian winter. The 
Russians, you are aware, belong to the Greek Church." 

168. Are Dr. Cramp's assertions true ? 

Dr. Cramp gives part of the truth and suppresses part 
when he says the Greek Church immerses and does not 
" sustain sprinkling or pouring." 

169. In what way do the Greeks baptize? 

1. They immerse three times and pour or sprinkle 
three times. They frequently dip their infants to the 
breast and pour water on the head. 

2. Booth, (whose work Dr. Cramp recommends,) in 
his Pedohaptisyn Examined^ quotes Deylingius : " So 
long as the Apostles lived, as 'many believe^ immersion 
only was used, to which afterward, perhaps, they added 
a kind of affusion, such as the GreeJcs practise at this day^ 
after having performed the trine immersion." 

3. HuBER says : '^ I resided upward of three years in 
the capital of the Grand Seignior's dominions, in a Greek 
family of the first respectability. During that time, I 
was present at four baptisms — two in the family and 
two in the immediate neighborhood. It is the custom 
among the Greeks either to have their children baptized 
publicly in their churches, or else in their houses ; in 
which latter case the parents invite their nearest rela- 
tions and neighbors ; and after the ceremony, while re- 
freshments pass round, the father gives to each person 
present a token of witnesship, consisting of a small piece 
of Turkish money, through which a hole is pierced and a 
piece of new ribbon inserted. I was thus invited to at- 
tend the four above-mentioned baptisms, and I still have 
in my possession two tokens \ the other two may be seen 



96 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

in Mrs. McDowalPs museum in Danville. The company 
were all seated on the sofas around the room. A table 
stood in the middle with a basin of water on it. The 
2:)riest was then sent for, who, upon entering the room, 
was received by the father of the infant and led to the 
baptismal water, which he consecrated by a short prayer 
and the sign of a cross ; then the mother presented to 
him her babe, which he laid on his left arm, and in the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost he thrice 
dipped his hand in the water and dropped some of it 
on the child's forehead, giving it a name. . . , Most 
generally the infants are baptized in the churches. Be- 
fore the altar stands a tripod holding a basin of conse- 
crated water for baptism.'^ This was the baj^tism pro- 
per. The preparatory immersions which the Greeks — 
at least in some places — practise would be performed 
in another apartment and without the presence of the 
priest. 

4. The immersions were not baptisms proper. In 
earlier days, persons when immersed were naked. Dea- 
conesses were appointed to officiate at the immersion of 
women and of girls. These immersions were prepara- 
tory to the baptisms proper, which were performed by 
the minister. The minister was not required to be pre- 
sent while the parties, being naked, submitted to the 
trine immersions. 

170. What word do the Greeks use for immersion? 

Since immersion has become a practice among the 
Greeks they use the Greek word Jcataduo and its deriva- 
tives, which means " to dip under," " to cause the sink- 
ing of," "to immerse." The word baptizo would not 
answer their purpose, because, in common usage, it was 
employed to express any kind of religious washing, 
however partial. 

171. Will you give some illustrations to show that 
the Greeks use the word kataduo to indicate the act of 
immersion ? 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 97 

1. Cyeil, of Jertisalem: "Plunge them down (kator 
duete) thrice into the water, and raise them up again." 

2. Basil : " By three immersions {en trisi Jmtadusesi) 
and by the like number/' etc. 

3. JoHi^ Damascenus : " Baptism is a type of the 
death of Christ ; for by three immersions, {7<:ataduseon^y'^ 
etc. 

4. Photius : " To immerse (Jcatadusai) a child three 
times in the bath," etc. 

5. Dr. Cramp asks : ''What can be fairer than to sub- 
mit the question to the Greeks themselves ? They must 
surely understand their own language." The question 
has been submitted to them, and it appears that when 
they wanted to express the actioji of putting under water 
they chose the word Jcataduo. If these Greek writers 
believed that baptizo expressed definitely the act of im- 
mersion, why did they select other words to express 
that action, and employ baptizo in cases where there 
w^as no immersion ? 



XXXVIII. — Cueist's Ordinatiois'. 

172. When did Christ's ordination take place ? 

Christ was ordained about the close of John's minis- 
try, and when he was sprinkled with water by John and 
anointed with the Holy Ghost. (See page 24.) 

173. Was it necessary that Christ should be ordained 
for the work of the ministry and priesthood ? 

Yes. Every high-priest had to be ordained in things 
pertaining to God. (Hebrews 5:1.) All generations 
are bound together in one moral system, having one 
God and one religion, whose principles do not change. 
In the old disjDensation, as in the new, those who have 
been called to the sacred office of the ministry in the 
church were required to be set apart by consecration or 
ordination. In Christ we have the high-priest typified 



98 A CATECHIS:\I OF BAPTIS:^ 

in the old dispensation, and in him we have the first and 
greatest preacher of the new. 

174. What does Dr. Cramp affirm respecting Christ's 
baptism for the work of the priesthood ? 

1. Dr. Cramp appears to teach that Christ was not a 
priest at all. He says : '^ These are novelties in theology. 
The baptism of the Saviour did not take place under the 
law. There was no command of the kind in the law." 
Matthew taught differently ; for he says Christ came to 
John to be baptized, for thus it became him to fulfill the 
requirements of the law. 

2. Dr. Cramp says: "I must confess my astonishment 
at the childish folly of those who assert that our Lord 
was baptized in order to be qualified for the priesthood. 
One person says that ' by it he was inducted into the 
priesthood at the age of thirty years.' . . . These 
objectors carry on the argument (if, indeed, it be wor- 
thy of the name) in this manner : The priests under the 
law were ceremonially purified before taking ofiice by 
sprinkling ; Jesus was inducted into the priesthood by 
baptism, therefore baptism is sprinkling ! Ink and 
paper need not be wasted in exposing such absurdities." 
{Grampus Cor, and Catechism.) 

3. Dr. Cramp displays characteristic tact in passing 
over this point with a peculiar rhetorical flourish, that 
is meant to occupy a place that would have been better 
filled by substantial reasoning. It may be the easiest 
way by which he can dispose of the question, though it 
may not be the most satisfactory. The learned doctor 
fears that an expenditure of his "ink and paper" on tliis 
subject would be " wasted." His economical discretion 
is judicious, as any effort of his in that direction would 
doubtless be *' wasted" effort. Some, however, may 
regret that he has not condescended to prove, if it were 
possible, that the baptism of Christ was not an ordain- 
ing or consecrating act, connected with the assumption 
of his official work. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 99 

175. "What views are held by divines concerning our 
Lord's baptism ? 

Various and conflicting views are held. Some do not 
hold opinions coincident with those expressed in this 
work, while the views of others harmonize therewith. 

176. Why do you reject those antagonistic opinions ? 

1. They are not sustained by the Scriptures. 

2. They are contradictory, unreasonable, and improba- 
ble. Among those whose theory respecting this ques- 
tion seems unsatisfactory are some authors whose names 
are revered household words in the churches. An ex- 
amination of their expressed hypotheses as to why 
Christ was baptized will show that a wide disagreement 
exists among them ; and such a want of harmony indi- 
cates a misconception of the truth. We find the truth 
by studying, not those great critics, but the inspired 
word of God. 

177. How do you prove the necessity and fact of 
Christ's ordination ? 

Hebrews 5 : 1, 4, IQ : "For every high-priest taken 
from among men is ordained." . . . ''No man tak- 
eth this honor unto himself but he that is called of 
God." . . . ''Called of God an high-priest." 

Hebrews 2:17: " In all things it behoved him to be 
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merci- 
ful and faithful high-priest." His brethren were under 
the dominion of a law w^hich required ordination ; and 
this ordination involved the sprinkling of water upon 
them at thirty years of age. He could not have been a 
faithful high-priest if he had failed to keep the law in 
any one particular. It behoved him " in all things" to 
be made like unto his brethren. 

178. Do any of the learned critics take this view of 
Christ's baptism ? 

1. Adam Clarke, LL.D. ; " 'It becometh us to fulfill 
all righteousness' — that is, every righteous ordinance. 



100 A CATECHIS:^! OF BAPTISM. 

The baptism of Christ was necessary ; our Lord repre- 
sented the high-priest, and was to be the high-priest 
over the house of God. Xow, as the high-priest was 
initiated by washing — baptism — ('thus shalt thou do 
unto them to cleanse them : sprinkle water of purifying 
upon them,' Numbers 8 : T,) and anointing, so must 
Christ ; hence he was baptized and anointed with the 
Holy Ghost. Thus he fultilled the righteous ordinance 
of his initiation into the office of high-priest." 

2. Willia:m Nast, D.D. : " This baptism was also 
proper for Jesus. It was . • . the ordination for the 
Messianic office." ..." Jesus fulfilled all righteousness 
by being introduced into his Messianic office by bap- 
tism." . . . '' This solemn and sublime recognition of 
our Lord in his official character involves," etc. 

3. D. D. Whedex, D.D. : "John's baptism of Jesus 
was an unction for his kingship or priesthood." 

4. Neaxdee : '' His baptism by John was the symbol 
of the preparatory consecration." . . . ''For his out- 
ward calling and solemn introduction into office he 
looked to him." 

5. J. P. Laxge, D.D. : "Li contrast with the baptism 
of the Pharisees and Sadducees we have here the bap- 
tism of Jesus. . . . And this constituted, so to speak, 
the consecration for his work." 

6. F. G. HiBBAED, D.D. : " The next step in our in- 
quiry will be to ascertain what law, then in vogue, 
required the Saviour to be baptized. There were various 
ordinances of ablution among the Jews ; but these, in 
general, could not be supposed to apply to Christ. We 
can not sujDpose our Lord to have previously contracted 
any ceremonial defilement which was the reason of his 
baptism. But observe the particular juncture. Our 
Lord was about to enter upon his public ministry. He 
liad attained his thirtieth year — the year at which, by 
the appointment of God, the priests under the law were 
to undertake the duties of their office — and he was a 
high-i^riest. ... If we examine the whole code of Mo- 



A. CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 101 

ses, we shall find no law that required Christ to be bap- 
tized, at this particular juncture, but the law enjoining 
and regulating priestly consecration." 

V. W. MoKLEY PuNSHo:^' : '' In silence corresponding 
to all the unostentatious adjuncts of the Saviour has the 
work of preparation begun. In retirement he has re- 
ceived his fitness for the public ministr}^ ; in retirement 
he has been baptized into consecration by his reluctant 
forerunner." 

8. John Gumming, D.D. : " The lav/ was then in force, 
and it became Jesus, as under the law, while the law of 
Levi lasted, to fulfill all righteousness, and to join all 
the outward administrations of Levi, just as any other 
Jew. It was not because Jesus needed regeneration ; 
nor was baptism, in his case, meant to be the type, the 
symbol, or the seal of it. But he was baptized as intro- 
ductory to his great ofiice, which he began to fill at 
thirty years of age, when he began to preach the great 
truths that he sealed with his precious blood." 

9. W. O'Neill : " There can be little doubt, I think, 
but that the baptism or purification of our Lord at the 
Jordan, in whatsoever way it was performed, was but 
his inaugural rite into the high-priesthood, ' over the 
house of God,' on which that day he was to enter. That 
ofiice he came from heaven to earth to assnme ; and as 
the ancient priests of the law were all typical of him, he 
enters on his work at a similar time, and in a similar 
manner, to what they had done. They were to com- 
mence it at ' thirty years of age ;' so did he. They w^ere 
to be ' washed (sprinkled) Avith water,' as a ceremony 
of purification ; so w^as he. They were to be anointed 
with ' precious ointment ;' he was anointed with the 
Spirit without measure. They were to be clad in 
IDriestly garments of glory and beauty ; he was already 
arrayed in the glorious beauty of his own perfect 
humanity, and the fullness of the Godhead resident in 
him. In these different points I perceive an exact agree- 
ment between the types and the antitype, and thus it 



102 A CATECHIS:y[ OF BAPTISM. 

became him ' to fulfill all righteousness,' that no part of 
the law of the priesthood might be omitted, and that 
that corresiDondenee might appear." 

10. J. H. GoDTvix: "John was both prophet and 
priest ; but the first was his chief character. As a pro- 
phet he preached to the people ; as a priest, he used a 
rite of purification similar to those administered by the 
priests. All public purifications with water, and all in 
which one person acted on another, were by sprinkling 
or afiiision. These, and only these, were appointed by 
the law: and they are called baj)tismi5. The same name 
was given to the common purifications of the Jews. 
There is nothing in any of the narratives of the Isew 
Testament to lead to the supposition that, either by 
John or by the disciples of Jesus, any persons were ever 
baptized excejDt in the way in which the priests were 
accustomed to baptize people in public, by the sprink- 
ling of water. The same term which is nsed for the 7'ite 
is also nsed for the reality of which it is an emblem. 
As there was a circumcision of the body and a circum- 
cision of the mind, so there was a baptism of the body 
and a baptism of the mind." 

11. Christ was prophet, priest, and king. He was 
more than any of his predecessors. He spake with an 
authority peculiar to himself. He was a priest after the 
order of Melchisedec ; that is, he was a royal priest. 
He has a name, therefore, which is above every name. 
He was none the less a priest or king because he was a 
prophet; he was none the less a prophet or king because 
he Avas a priest ; he was none the less a prophet or priest 
because he was a king. It is said, in Zechariah 6 : 13, 
" He shall sit and rule upon his throne ; and he shall be 
a priest upon his throne." Christ, as a priest, was made 
like unto his brethren in all things required by the law. 
John the Forerunner was properly qualified, because of 
his official position, to apply to Christ the sprinkling of 
water, without which he could not legally have per- 
formed the functions of his priesthood. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 103 

12. Dr. Cramp is amazed at the fact that such opin- 
ions are held and taught; and he has expressed his 
astonishment at what he considers this '' childish folly." 
His astonishment is natural and suggestive. A clear 
and consistent exegesis of this subject exposes the ab- 
surdity involved in the dogma that Christ was baptized 
as an example for us ; and that Christ was baptized by 
immersion. 

XXXIX. — Dipping Difficulties. 

179. Will you mention some of the difficulties in- 
volved in the immersionist theory ? 

1. On the day of Pentecost three thousand persons 
were converted and baptized. The gift of the Holy 
Spirit came upon the assembled brethren. "They 
were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to 
speak." This became "noised abroad." A multitude 
of devout men of different nations, then in the city, 
hearing of these things, Avent to the house Avhere the 
brethren were assembled. These were all amazed, and 
had something to say " one to another." Peter standing 
up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and prea'ched. 
This speaking, and this gathering of the multitude, and 
this preaching, must have consumed a considerable por- 
tion of the day. The Baptist theory requires that in the 
remaining fragment of the day those three thousand 
persons must have each told his or her experience ; and 
must have each been immersed, which would involve on 
the part of each a change of clothing. It seems difficult 
to comprehend how so much could have been accom- 
plished in the swift-running moments of a fast-waning 
day. It is difficult to resist the suggestion that, if those 
three thousand persons must each be put under water, 
it would be needful, for various reasons, to defer a por- 
tion of the operation until the following day. To have 
baptized those three thousand persons by the mode pre- 
dicted by the prophet, when speaking of these latter 
days, (Ezekiel 36 : 25 : " Then will I sprinkle clean water 



104 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISiM. 

upon YOU, and ye shall be clean,") would have been in 
accordance with existing usages, and could have been 
done in the house where the word was preached, and 
where the brethren received the baptism of the Spirit. 

2. A difficulty also jDresents itself in reference to the 
place where such a ceremony could be performed. '' No 
river passes the city ; the nearest lake is many miles 
away ; the brook Cedron is the dry bed of a little stream 
which only flows in the winter months." And neither 
wells, pools, nor cisterns could have been used for such 
a purpose. 

3. The immersion of those three thousand persons 
would involve a public display in a city intensely hostile 
to the disciples, and their cause, and their Master. Dr. 
Cramp says, {Catechism^ p. 38:) "There were public 
pools — the pool of Bethesda, the pool of Siloam, and 
others — at which the administration might have taken 
place without any difficulty." Dr. Cramp, obviously, 
does not comprehend the situation. There existed, 
among the authorities of the church and of the state in 
Jerusalem, as well as among the people, the bitterest 
hostility -to Christ and to his gospel. It is impossible 
that Peter, with the other apostles and brethren, could 
have taken three thousand persons to any of the pools 
of the city, or any other public place, and immersed them, 
in the name of Jesus, " without any difficulty." An 
attempt to accomplish such a work in Jerusalem would 
have provoked a most furious opposition, and would 
have caused a wild and wide-spread uproar throughout 
the whole community. The iDrevailing popular senti- 
ment of Jerusalem at that time would not have permit- 
ted their public pools to be used for a purj^ose so dis- 
tasteful and abhorrent to the Jewish people. 

4. The manifestation of the popular feeling, soon after 
the day of Pentecost, against Peter and John, for having 
professed to heal a lame man in Jerusalem " in the name 
of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," indicates what would have 
been the result if there had been an attempt to immerse 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 105 

those three thousand persons in the public pools of that 
city. Peter and John were arrested and imprisoned and 
put upon their trial, because of the good deed done to 
the impotent man in the name of Jesus. The arrest of 
those brethren, and their imprisonment and their trial, 
show how malicious and how pervading was the hatred 
against Jesus and his disciples. If the knowledge of the 
performance of an isolated deed of mercy, like that of 
healing the lame man in a public place in the name of 
Jesus, had excited the populace, and had caused the 
assembling of the great council of the nation — " the 
rulers, and elders, and scribes, and high-priests " — how 
much more would the city have been moved with rage, 
and the authorities with indignation, if the brethren had 
attempted to immerse those three thousand persons in 
the pools, for which they cherished so much pride, and 
in the name of the Nazarene, whom they had hanged on 
a tree. The fact that there is no record of any opposi- 
tion or any uproar, on the part of either the rulers or 
the people, on the day of Pentecost, suggests the inevi- 
table inference that those three thousand persons bap- 
tized on that day could not have been immersed. 

5. Immersionists affirm that baptizing is di23ping, or 
plunging, or immersing, and that these terms are there- 
fore synonymous. By subjecting their theory to a 
practical trial, and substituting one of these words for 
another, its absurdity will become apparent. Let us 
look at a few examples : 

Matthew 3 : 11 : ''I indeed plunge you with water 
unto repentance . . . he shall plunge you with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire." 

Matthew 20 : 22 : "Are ye able to drink of the cup 
that I shall drink of, and to be plunged with the plung- 
ing that 1 am plunged with ?" 

Mark 1:4: '^ John did plunge in the wilderness, and 
preach the plunging of repentance." 

Mark 7:4: "And when they come from the market, 
except they plunge, they eat not. And many other 
things there be, which they have received to hold, as the 



106 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

plunging of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of 
tables ;" that is, beds and couches. 

Acts 11 : 16: "John indeed plunged with water ; but 
ye shall be plunged with the Holy Ghost." 

Acts 19 : 3 : "Unto what then were ye plunged? 
And they said, Unto John's plunging." 

Romans 6 : 3, 4 : " Know ye not that so many of us 
as were plunged into Jesus Christ were plunged into his 
death ? Therefore we are buried with him by plunging 
into death." 

1 Cor. 12:13: " For by one Spirit are we all plunged 
into one body." 

If either the word " dip " or " immerse " were substi- 
tuted for the word " plunge," in the quotations given 
above, the difficulty Avould be quite as manifest. 

The same absurdity would appear in praying for the 
desirable baptism of the Holy Spirit in the dipping 
phraseology : O Lord, plunge my soul with the Holy 
Ghost ; or, dip my soul with the Holy Ghost ; or, plunge, 
or dip, this congregation with the Holy Ghost. 

6. In 1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2, the Israelites are said to have 
been " baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 
The Israelites were not plunged unto Moses, nor im- 
mersed unto Moses. Upon the Israelites the clouds 
dropped down rain. The Egyptians were immersed. 
But the Egyptians who were immersed were not bap- 
tized ; and the Israelites who were baptized were not 
immersed. In 1 Peter 3 : 20, 21, there is a probable 
reference to the baptism of Noah and his family in the 
ark, by the rain which fell upon them. Peter shows 
that baptism is the antitype of the salvation of those 
eight souls. Yet the very gist of their salvation con- 
sisted in their not having been immersed at all. The 
unbelieving contemporaries of Noah who were immersed, 
and perished in the deluge, were not baptized ; but the 
eight souls who were saved in the ark, and were bap- 
tized by the falling rain, were not immersed. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 107 

XL. — Immersionists and Infant Baptism. 

1 80. What opinions are held by immersionists respect- 
ing the antiquity of infant baptism ? 

Immersionists are not able to point to the date at 
which the practice of infant baptism, which they con- 
sider an innovation, was first adopted. Nor are they 
able to state the circumstances under which, nor the 
persons by whom, the supposed innovation was intro- 
duced. It is not probable that a change in the theology 
and the practice of the church so radical as is involved 
in the introduction of the practice of infant baptism, 
could have been introduced without criticism and cen- 
sure sufficiently sharp and emphatic to attract the no- 
tice of the historian. Immersionists, recognizing this 
fact, have professed to be able to fix the time when this 
supposed novelty first appeared. 

181. At what period is it supposed by immersionists 
that infant baptism wa$ introduced ? 

Immersionists disagree among themselves respecting 
the time. And they not only contradict each other, but 
they sometimes contradict themselves. 

182. What do you infer from such contradictions? 
Where there is want of accord among the wisest and 

ablest advocates and defenders of a creed, the inference 
is inevitable that the creed is seriously defective. 

183. Will you mention an instance of contradiction? 

1. Dr. Cramp says, {Christian Messenger^ January 
11th, 1865:) ''Infant baptism . . . first aj^peared in the 
middle of the third century.'''^ 

2. Dr. Cramp, again, in his Catechism^ refers to Ter- 
tullian, and quotes from him. He says that Tertullian 
" protested against the innovation " involved in the bap- 
tism of little children. Dr. Cramp says this baptism of 
infants is " the first mention of such baptism, and it is 
mentioned in order to be opposed." Dr. Cramp, again, 
says that " Tertullian lived in the latter end of the sec- 



103 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

ond ceutnry, and the beginning of the third. He died 
about the year 220." 

3. Dr. Cramp might also have said that Tertullian 
was born about the middle of the second century. He 
embraced the heresy of Montanus about the year 200. 
His orthodox works were written before he ceased to be 
a Presbyter. Dr. Joseph Angus, an immersionist, gives 
the year 19S as the date of his orthodox works. 

4. Dr. Cramp again says : " What do you suppose, 
then, was the state of opinion and jDractice in the Chris- 
tian church, in reference to baptism, at the beginning 
of the third century ? The design and eflicacy of the 
ordinance were to a great extent misunderstood, and 
superstition (infant baptism) was advancing with rapid 
strides. Still, it was generally held that baptism was 
an act of dedication to God. It was believers' baptism, 
and the churches were what are now called Baptist 
churches. The only exceptions were in Africa, where 
the baptism of children had been partially introduced." 
That is, about the year 200 infant baptism had been, at 
some former period, introduced. 

184. How does it appear that Dr. Cramp is contradic- 
tory? 

1. Dr. Cramp says, in the Christian Messenger^ in 
1865, that infant baptism first appeared about the middle 
of the third century. 

2. A year later he admits, in his Catechism^ that Ter- 
tullian opposed the practice of infant baptism, which had 
already made its appearance. And Tertullian was born 
about the middle of the second century, and published 
his works, from which Dr. Cramp quotes, about the year 
198 ; and died in 220. 

3. Tertullian wrote about infant baptism as an estab- 
lished practice, which had been the custom of the church 
before his time. Dr. Cramp's admission that Tertullian, 
born about the middle of the second century, " mention- 
ed " infant baptism as a practice already existing, con- 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 109 

trasts impressively with his statement a year previously, 
in the Christian Messenger^ that " infant baptism first 
appeared in the middle of the third century." 

185. What does Dr. Cramp say about Origen ? 

1. Dr. Cramp says, Origen " was ordained to the 
Christian ministry in Palestine ; was a laborious stu- 
dent, a very learned man, but a fanciful theologian." 
Origen was born in the year 185, and died in the year 
254. 

2. Dr. Cramp, again, says, {Catechism^ p. 22:) "In 
the passages which refer to baptism, admitting them to 
be Origen's, he says that ' infants are baptized for the 
remission of sins.' In one place he observes that bap- 
tism is administered ' even to little children according 
to the usage of the church;' and in another, that 'the 
church has received from the Apostles a tradition to 
give baptism even to little children.' " 

186. How does Dr. Cramp dispose of the teachings of 
Origen ? 

He assumes that Origen Avas not sound in his theo- 
logy — that he could not adduce a " Thus saith the 
Lord" in confirmation of the right to baptize infants — 
that he was " a fanciful theologian " — and that what 
Origen taught was only " the usage of the church " and 
'^ tradition." Dr. Cramp says :" Origen knew that it 
was only a tradition, and that neither precept nor pre- 
cedent had been discovered in the New Testament." 

187. What do you learn from these admissions ? 

1. Dr. Cramp's admissions show that the defense of 
his creed involves him in contradictions. He admits 
that Origen, born in the second century, taught that 
infant baptism was " the usage of the church," and that 
the church in the time of Origen held the " tradition " 
that infant baptism had existed in the Apostles' day. 
The disagreement apparent between these admissions 
and Dr. Cramp's previous teaching, that "infant baptism 
first appeared in the middle of the third century," is 



110 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

suggestive. Dr. Cramp has blundered somewhere. If 
the church received from the Apostles a tradition to give 
baptism to infants — and if Origen, as he affirms, was 
himself baptized in infancy, then Dr. Cramp's assertions 
are unworthy of acceptance, and his creed needs revision 
and amendment. 

Dr. Cramp appears to think that he has disposed of 
the difficulty, which Origen gives his creed, by affirming 
that Origen had no better ground for teaching that 
infants should be baptized than " tradition " and the 
prevailing " custom of the church ;" and by affirming 
that the Xew Testament does not teach the doctrines 
that Origen believed and taught. The point, however, 
which we are now considering is, not what is taught in 
the Scriptures on this subject — that point is elsewhere 
investigated — but what was the practice in Origen'* s 
time^ from the year 1S5 to the year 254 ; and ichat did 
Origen say was the practice of the church from the 
A^yostles'^ day f On these j^oints Origen's testimony is 
clear, and shows that infant baptism was practised in 
his day and had been handed down from the Apostles 
themselves. 

XLI. — The Covexant of Gkace. 

188. Were infants included in the Covenant of Grace ? 

Infants were included with their parents in the cove- 
nant of grace. The}^ always received the seal of that 
covenant ; and they can not therefore be excluded with- 
out an express command from God. The practice of 
infant baptism may be justified by the continuity and 
identity of the covenant of grace to Jew and Christian, 
the sign only of admission being altered. 

189. Does the covenant of grace still exist ? 

The covenant which God made with Abraham is the 
gospel covenant, and under it we now live. 

190. Are all the provisions of the covenant still bind- 
ing? 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. Ill 

The covenant embraced several incidental matters 
which were peculiar to Abraham's natural seed, the 
Jews. But all these have either expired by limitation, 
or been revoked, or changed, by God's command. That 
covenant at the same time included the promise of the 
Messiah and all the blessings of the Gospel. It clearly 
included the Gospel itself and the gospel church and all 
its blessings. 

Gen. 17 : 7 : "And I will establish my covenant be- 
tween me and thee and thy seed after thee in their gen- 
erations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto 
thee, and to thy seed after thee." 

Gen. 22 : 16-18 : ''By myself have I sworn, saith the 
LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast 
not withheld thy son, thine only son : 

" That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiply- 
ing I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, 
and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy 
seed shall possess the gate of his enemies ; 

" And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed ; because thou hast obeyed my voice." 

These passages show that God's covenant with Abra- 
ham was "an everlasting covenant," and included a 
blessing for " all the nations of the earth." That must 
have been the gospel covenant. 

191. Does the New Testament teach that the cove- 
nant with Abraham included the gospel dispensation ? 

1. Yes. It teaches that the covenant with Abraham 
comprehended a spiritual family, including all the faith- , 
ful, so that those who obey the gospel are included in 
the promise as Abraham's promised children. It is 
believed that the declaration, "Tn thee shall all nations 
be blessed," was the Gospel preached before unto Abra- 
ham. 

Gal. 3 : 6-9 : " Even as Abraham believed God, and it 
was accounted to him for righteousness. 

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the 
same are the children of Abraham, 



112 A CATECHISM OF B.i^PilS:^!. 

" And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
blessed. 

'•So then they which be of faith are blessed with 
faithful Abraham." 

2. In GaL 3 : 12-14, Paul shows that the blessing of 
the Gospel enjoyed by the Gentiles is declared to be the 
blessing of Abraham or the blessing promised to Abra- 
ham : '* And the law is not of faith : but, The man that 
doeth them shall live in them. 

'• Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is 
every one that hangeth on a tree : 

" That the blessing of Abraham might come on the 
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive 
the promise of the Spirit through faith." 

192. TVas there danger lest the covenant made with 
Abraham should in any way become confounded with 
the Mosaic system ? 

1. Yes; and Paul indicates the distinction between 
the two, in Gal. 3 : 15-19 : •' Brethren, I speak after the 
manner of men ; Thougfh it be but a man's covenant, vet 
if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth there- 
to. 

'• Xow to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
made. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many ; but as 
of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 

"And this I say, that the covenant, that was con- 
fimied before of God in Christ, the law, which was four 
hundred and thirty years after, can not disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none eflect. 

" For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more 
of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 

" Wherefore then serveth the law ? It was added 
because of transgressions, till the seed should come to 
whom the promise was made ; and it was ordained by 
angels in the hand of a mediator." 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 113 

2. From this passage, " it is certain, that tlie Gospel is 
but a continuation of the covenant made with Abraham, 
that the gospel church with its blessings is a fuliillment 
of that covenant, and that it is not a new thing, but a 
continuation of the Abrahamic family, with such altera- 
tions as were required to adapt it to a wider circle by 
the incorporation of the Gentiles." 

193. Does Paul elsewhere teach the same doctrine? 

Paul, under the figure of an olive-tree, show^s that the 
gospel church is the old Abrahamic tree, with the Gen- 
tiles g raffed on. 

Romans 11 : 17-21 : '' And if some of the branches be 
broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert 
graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the 
root and fatness of the olive-tree ; 

" Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, 
thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 

'' Thou Y/ilt say then. The branches were broken off, 
that I might be graffed in. 

" Well ; because of unbelief they were broken off', and 
thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear : 

" For if God spared not the natural branches, take 
heed lest he also spare not thee." 

194. Did infants receive the seal of the covenant of 
grace ? 

Yes. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant in 
the Judaic dispensation, and that seal was placed upon 
infants. 

Gen. 17 : 10: "This is my covenant w^hich he shall 
keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; 
Every man child among you shall be circumcised." 

Romans 4 : 11 : "And he received the sign of cir- 
cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had yet being uncircumcised : that he might be the 
father of all them that belieye, though they be not cir- 
cumcised." 



114 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

195. What change was made respecting the seal of 
the covenant under the new dispensation? 

This subject has been very briefly considered at page 
38. Baptism takes the place of circumcision and is 
now the seal of the covenant. " Circumcision was a 
mark of difference between the people of God and the 
uncovenanted world, and baptism is now that same mark 
of distinction." It follows, therefore, of necessity that 
infants are to have the seal of the covenant placed upon 
them — that is, they are to be baptized. 

196. What inference appears inevitable from these 
teachings ? 

The gospel church is no more and no other than the 
perfecting of the Abrahamic covenant. The truth, as 
involved in the covenant made with Abraham and 
sealed by circumcision, is confirmed in Christ, and we 
are enjoying the perfected state of that covenant in the 
privileges and blessings of the gospel church. 

Romans 15 : 8, 9 : '' iSTow I say that Jesus Christ was 
a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to 
confirm the promises made unto the fathers : 

"And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his 
mercy ; as it is written. For this cause I will confess to 
thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name." 

197. Does a change of the seal involve a change of the 
subjects of the seal ? 

As infants are included in the covenant of grace, and 
made partakers of its benefits, and as they received the 
former seal, they must receive the present seal, Avhich is 
baptism. Nothing but an express command can pre- 
clude infants from the rite of baptism. No such com- 
mand has been given. No sucli preclusion has been 
intimated. There is no record in the Scriptures that 
favors it. A special enactment to baptize infants was 
not needed. The existing covenant covered the whole 
ground : and infant baptism was required under the 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 115 

circumstances, as no command had been issued forbid- 
ding it. 

XLII. — The Geeat Commission. 

198. When was the great commission given? 

After the resurrection of our Lord and just previous 
to his ascension. 

Matthew 28 : 18-20: "And Jesus came and spake 
unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in hea- 
ven and in earth. 

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bajDtizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost : 

" Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, 
even unto the end of the world. Amen." 

199. What does this commission teach respecting in- 
fant baptism ? 

1. The commission teaches that we are to make dis- 
ciples of all persons — all nations. A nation includes 
the children of the nation. They were therefore to make 
disciples of the children. This is to be done by, first, 
baptizing them, and then teaching them. Ai^er they 
have been baptized, let them be taught so that they 
shall grow in grace, in wisdom, in knowledge, and in 
usefulness. The immersionist exegesis, which requires 
that we shall first complete religious instruction and 
then baptize, is manifestly wrong. 

2. According to two of the most important uncial 
MSS,, the Vatican, (B,) and the Cambridge Codex, (Co- 
dex Bezae or D,) the Greek reading is: ''Make disci- 
ples of all, and having baptized {baj^tiscmtes) them, in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, teach them to observe," etc. Lange says, this 
is the more correct reading, and that the text implies 
" two acts, a missionary and an ecclesiastical — the ante- 
cedent baptism, the subsequent instruction." Meyer 



116 A CATECHI53I OF BAPTISAI. 

says, the text according to the reading of the majority 
of the MSS. with the present participle {Jxipt hordes) 
even, requires first baptism and then teaching. Alfoed 
says, this passage implies : " the initiatory, admissory 
rite, and the subsequent teaching. It is much to be 
regretted that the rendering in our Bible has clouded 
the meaning of these 'important words. It will be ob- 
served that in our Lord's words, as in the church, the 
process of ordinary discipleship is from baptism to in- 
struction, that is, is admission in infancy to the cove- 
nant, and growing up into the observance of all things." 

XLIII. — The School of Cheist. 

200. TThat provision has Christ made for us as the 
great Teacher ? 

He has provided for teaching all nations. 

201. TVhat are the conditions for scholarship ? 

1. All adult persons who will come, may come, into 
Christ's school, by accepting him as their authority and 
guide, and by having faith in him. 

2. All infant children may be brought into this school. 

3. Baptism is the entrance to this school. Peter 
received the Gentiles to the church by baptism. The 
Epistles, which were designed to teach those who were 
in Christ's school, assume that all the disciples have 
been baptized. 

202. Is it right to baptize the children of unconverted 
parents ? 

Yes; if the parents bring them. The fict that pa- 
rents bring their children to be baptized implies, on the 
part of the parents, an outward profession of Christ, 
and beyond this we have no authority to claim. 

203. What example has Christ set respecting the 
admission of infants into his church ? 

1. Christ received infants when brought to him. He 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 117 

did not stop to inquire about the character or motives of 
the parents who brought their children to him. He de- 
clared that they were subjects of his kingdom — ^hence 
they were entitled to admission therein. He did not 
baptize them : Christian baptism had not been then 
instituted. ISTo adult person had then received Chris- 
tian baptism. From what Christ" said and did, the in- 
ference follows that, if Christian baptism had been at 
that time an institution of the church, the infants whom 
Christ had declared to be members of his kingdom 
would have received baptism. 

2. Christ does not limit the ways in which little 
children are to come to him. He leaves every practi- 
cable and conceivable way wide open. Entrance into 
covenant with Christ is one of the ways by which little 
children can come to him. From Christ's command to 
'' suffer little children" to come unto him, we infer that 
he does not stop up a single one of those open and tra- 
veled roads, whereby at any time children can come to 
him. Since he does not, we should not. "He open- 
eth, and no man shutteth." 

204. What do the Scri2:)tures teach respecting child- 
hood scholarship ? 

1. The Scriptures teach that children should be 
brought up " in the nurture and , admonition of the 
Lord." (Eph. 6 : 4.) The interests of Christ's kingdom 
are all-important ; and the souls of men are precious 
beyond all price; it is therefore of the greatest moment 
that the earliest as well as the most careful efforts be 
made to train up children aright. 

2. The church of Christ is a school. The course of 
education is summed up in the order and the studies 
w^hich the Master prescribes. In this school are those 
who have placed themselves under the instruction and 
directions of the Master ; and those also whose parents 
have placed them there to grow up under the Master's 
authority, and discipline, and counsels. Persons are not 
admitted to this school because they have been taught, 



118 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

but because they need to be taught. Some are consi- 
derably advanced in instruction. Some do not know 
the alphabet. Some only have their names enrolled. 
There is no law in the case which ''forbids" children 
to be brought into this school, except immersionist law. 
They are not required to wander as idlers and truants 
until they can appreciate the importance of scholarship. 
The consent of the children is not required. Upon the 
parent devolves the right and duty of putting his own 
children to school without their consent. Their names 
may be enrolled before they have begun to learn. The 
act of admission and enrollment is baptism. 

3. The Scriptures assure us that, if children are brought 
up in the way they should go, they will not depart from 
it. Experience sometimes appears to contradict the state- 
ments of the inspired word. Many Christian parents 
train their children unwisely or unfaithfully. When the 
children of such parents depart from the truth, their 
education must have been defective. Discipline may 
have been administered from the stand-point of anger ; 
w^hereas it should always have been administered Ironi 
the stand-point of love ; or in some other way, probably, 
the education has been not sufficiently comprehensive, 
and discriminating, and persevering. 

4. By the covenant relations into which God has con- 
descended to enter with man, it is predetermined that 
infants should have the privilege of scholarship in the 
church. Admission to such scholarship implies the re- 
ception previously of the admissory rite of baptism. 

XLIV. — The Day of Pentecost. 

205. Did Peter allude to the baptism of infants in his 
sermon on the day of Pentecost? 

1. Peter urged the importance of repentance and bap- 
tism. 

Acts 2 : 38, 39 : " Then Peter said unto them, Repent, 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM:. 119 

Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost. 

" For the promise is unto you, and to your children, 
and to all that are afar off." 

2. Peter evidently referred to the promise made to 
Abraham, which included infants. He was a Jew, 
and was preaching to Jews ; and these must have un- 
derstood him as including infants in this promise. 
Laxge says, in a note on this passage : " The church 
and the people of God had hitherto been so constituted 
that not only adults but also little children belonged to 
the people of God, and with all these he made a cove- 
nant that he would be their God. _ Let us now suppose 
that, on the day of Pentecost, Peter had thus addressed 
the Jews : ' Brethren, repent, and let every one of you 
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
sion of sins ; but your little children shall not be bap- 
tized ; they shall remain in their sins, continue in their 
state of condemnation, and be counted among the peo- 
ple of Satan, until they grow up and reach the years of 
understanding;' what answer would the devout Jews 

have made? If the Apostles had made holy 

baptism, which is the true door of the kingdom of hea- 
ven, narrower, by instituting a baptismal examination, 
as those deluded spirits do Avho degrade the sacrament 
of baptism to the rank of an exhibition of certificates 
of their full-grown ' believers,' then these three thousand 
could never have been added on the same day." 

XLV. — Apostolic Examples. 

206. Did the Apostles baptize infants ? 

It is evident from the Scriptures that the Apostles 
baptized infants. Various passages indicate that fact. 

Acts 16 : 31-33 : '' And they said. Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 

"And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and 
to all that Avere in his house. 



120 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

" And he took them the same horn* of the night, and 
washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, 
straightway." 

207. How does it appear from this passage that in- 
fants are entitled to baptism ? 

By the phraseology employed by Paul. He used two 
different Greek words on this occasion, which, in our 
version, are rendered " house " — oikos and oikia. The 
word oikos is used by both Old and iNTew Testament 
writers in the sense oi family^ with special reference to 
infants^ and the same word oikos is frequently used in 
the classic Greek to express the same meaning. The 
word oikia is used by the same writers in the sense of 
household^ including servants. The passage just quoted 
should read: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
thou shalt be saved, and thy family, (oikos,) (including 
all thy children.) And they sj)ake unto him the word 
of the Lord, and to all that were in his household, 
(oikia,) (including servants, if any.) And he took them 
the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; 
and was baptized, he and all his (oikos) straightway." 
He preached to all that were in the house, (oikia^) ser- 
vants and all others ; but he only baptized the jailer 
and his (oikos) family. The promise was to him and 
his oikos — his family, including his children of what- 
ever age. The oikia — servants of the jailer — heard the 
word ; but we do not read that one of the oikia was 
baptized, whereas this we do read of the jailer, and all 
his house ; which is precisely what the Apostle foretold. 

208. Do other passages of Scripture indicate the same 
teachings ? 

1. Yes. Lydia and her oikos^ and Stephanus and his 
oikos, were baptized. 

2. It is difficult to imagine any phraseology that could 
have been employed, which would more clearly express 
the fact that the Apostles baptized infants. If the nar- 
rative stated in any direct terms, " The Apostles bap- 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 121 

tized infants," still objections might have been urged. 
Origen, who was born in the second century, and who 
was in a position to be acquainted with the facts, says 
that the Apostles baptized infants ; and immersionists 
exclaim : " Fanciful theologian " — " Metaphorical in- 
fants." No words can so teach any doctrine but un- 
scrupulous controversialists may object. 

3. Laivtge says, (in note on Acts 16:15:) " The real 
strength of the argument (namely, that as households in- 
clude children, we have no right to except them from 
the general statement) lies not in any one case, but in 
the repeated mention of whole houses as baptized." 

Bengel says : " Who can believe that not one infant 
was found in all these families, and that Jews, accus- 
tomed to the circumcision, and Gentiles, accustomed to 
the lustration of infants, should not have also brought 
them to baptism ?" 

209. Is the testimony of the early fathers, and histo- 
rians of the church, in harmony with these views ? 

1. Their testimony is in exact coincidence therewith. 
Tertullian was the first person who wrote against infant 
baptism. He published his works about the year 198. 
From these we learn that infant baptism was practised 
then, or he would not have written against it. This 
was more than a century before Constantine was con- 
verted, and hence it was before the introduction of cor- 
ruption into the church, through its connection with the 
state. If infant baptism had been introduced after Ter- 
tullian's birth, which was about the middle of the second 
century, his strongest argument would have been, This 
IS a new thing — the Apostles never baptized infants. 
But he never intimated that it was an innovation. 

2. The fragments of history that have come down to 
us from the earliest times of the Christian church are 
all in favor of infant baptism. The fact that there is 
no record of the introduction of this practice, is strong- 
evidence that it was the custom of the church from the 
beginning. 



122 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 

3. Dr.. Wall says : " For the first four hundred years 
after Christ, there appears only one man, Tertullian, 
who advises the delay of infant bajDtisni in some cases, 
and one Gregory, who did, perhaps, practise such delay 
in the case of his own children ; but no society of men 
so thinking or so practising ; or any one man saying it 
was unlawful to baptize infants. So, in the next seven 
hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be 
found, who either spoke for or practised such delay, but 
all the contrary." 

XL VI. — Belieyeks' Baptism. 

210. Do the Scriptures teach" that, under certain cir- 
cumstances, faith is required before baptism ? 

Yes. .All persons, morally responsible, who have not 
received baptism, and who seek admission to the Chris- 
tian church, are required to believe before being baptized. 

211. Do immersionists differ from others on this point ? 

1. Immersionists do not differ on this point from 
others. They sometimes mislead, by presenting pas- 
sages to prove that believers were baptized in apostolic 
times, which is a fact admitted by all. Moreover, it is 
sometimes urged that they hold the baptism of believers, 
and their antagonists the baptism of infants. Such a 
representation is a misstatement of the case. 

2. The baptism of believers is common ground to the 
Protestant Church. Every instance recorded in the 
Bible of faith being required in order to baptism, is a 
case where affusionists would require faith in order to 
baptism. From the multitude who Avere converted on 
the day of Pentecost, from Saul of Tarsus, from the 
eunuch, from Lydia, from the jailer of Philipi^i, and 
from all other Jewish proselytes and Gentiles, a j^rofes- 
sion of faith would of course be required. 

3. There are nine cases mentioned in the Scriptures 
where faith preceded baptism ; and any one of these is 



1 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTIS:M. 123 

enough to prove that any person, in the same circum- 
stances as they were, must beUeve in order to "be bap- 
tized. But mark what these circumstances were : 
Every one of them, up to the period of his baptism, 
was either a Jew or a Jewish proselyte, a Samaritan or 
a heathen ; each one of them was an adult coming into 
the Christian church from the world beyond it; each 
one of them was the case of a person whose parents 
had not been Christians ; and none of them had ever 
received Christian baptism before. 

4. Immersionists differ from others in affirming that 
because an adult needs faith before baptism, therefore 
an infant needs faith before baptism. His logic does 
not carry conviction Avith it when he affirms, because a 
profession of faith was needed from Jews, Samaritans, 
and pagans, on their entrance into the church, therefore 
the infants of those in cliurch membership already 
need to make a profession of faith, or be excluded from 
baptism for want of it. If faith before bajDtism is re- 
quired from adults, in certain circumstances, it does not 
follow from that fact, that faith before baptism is re- 
quired from infants in totally different cwcumstcmces, 
A person who would settle in another country and un- 
der another flag than those of his birth, is required to 
secure articles of naturalization before he can claim the 
rights of a citizen or a subject in the country and under 
the flag of his adoption ; but he who is born vvithin the 
realm may claim the rights of a citizen or of a subject, 
as his by birth. The circumstances peculiar to the alien 
and to the home-born are materially different, and have 
an important bearing on the question of citizenship. For 
the alien there must have been an initiatory rite — the 
profession of faith or fidelity (sometimes called an "oath 
of allegiance ") to the nationality into which he would 
enter. From those born in the realm no such pledge is 
required ; the rights of citizenship are theirs by birth ; 
they are free-born. Infants belong to tlie kingdom. JSTo 
such profession is required of them as of the alien, to en- 



124: A CATECHIS^I OF BAPTISM. 

title them to membership in the Christian nationality. 
Let their membership, then, be recognized by baptism. 

XL VII. — Objectioxs coxsidered. 

212. Will you state some of the objections to infant 
baptism, and how those objections may be answered? 

The principal objections urged against infant baptism 
have been examined by Dr. Luther Lee, in his Ele- 
ments of Theology^ and may be here rej)roduced. 

L " It is objected that there is no scriptural warrant 
for infant baptism. 

" To this it is replied, the objection is not admitted. 
It is insisted that a scriptural warrant has been made 
out in the preceding arguments. Whether or not there 
is a scriptural warrant for infant baptism, is the main 
question at issue, and to object that there is no such 
w^arrant, is to beg the Avhole question. It is thus seen 
that the objection can not be admitted in this form. 

2. '' It is objected that there is no express command 
in the Scriptures to baptize infants. In this form the 
objection is admitted, as a fact, but the conclusion is 
denied on the following grounds : 

" (1.) i^o express command was necessary, as infants 
]iad always been admitted, Jewish children by circumci- 
sion, and Gentile children with their parents, by circum- 
cision and baptism. It required a command to exclude 
them, rather than one to admit them. This has been 
proved in the direct argument, and the argument need 
not be repeated. 

" (2.) The absence of an express command is not suf- 
ficient to exclude infxnts from baptism only upon the 
assumption that nothing of like kind is to be done with- 
out an express command. This can not be maintained. 
There is no express command for admitting females to 
tlie Lord's Supper. It is clear that no females were 
present at its institution, and there is no command to 
admit them. So far then as the simple want of an 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 125 

express command is concerned, female communion must 
be abandoned or the objection to infant baptism must be 
abandoned. There is no express command for observing 
the first day of the week as a Sabbath, and yet it is 
almost a universal custom. There are a very few Bap- 
tists, known as ' Seventh-Day Baptists,' who are con- 
sistent enough with the ground they are compelled 
to take to oppose infant baptism, to rej^udiate the Chris- 
tian Sabbath and keep the Jewish Sabbath. The nature 
of the evidence in both cases is the same. 

3. " It has been objected that infants can not believe. 
It is not insisted that they can believe. The reply rests 
upon other grounds. 

" (1.) Infants could not believe when they received 
circumcision, and yet that very circumcision was a seal 
of the righteousness Avhich was by faith. And faith 
was required of all who were old enough to believe, in 
order to receive circumcision ; yet children who could 
not believe were included with their believing parents, 
and circumcised without being able to believe. 

" (2.) Faith is more clearly in order to salvation than 
it is to baptism. ' He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved.' This, some contend, excludes all but believ- 
ers. In a limited sense it does, but only so far as to 
exclude all unbelieving parents with their children ; but 
it includes all believing parents, and the children of 
believing parents are included with them by the very 
terms of the covenant. This has been proved. If it 
were not so, it would exclude infants from salvation ; for 
it is added, 'he that believeth not shall be damned.' 
This shows that these words of the commission do not 
take cognizance of the case of infants, or it Avould 
exclude them from salvation, and of course we are left 
to fall back upon the terms of the covenant to learn 
what relation tliey sustain to the ordinance of baptism, 
which has been proved to be the initiatory rite of the 
covenant of grace. It docs not say he that is not bap- 
tized shall be damned, but only ' he that believeth not ;' 
so that while infants are included with their believing 



126 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISiT. 

parents to receive the seal of the covenant by baptism, 
the children of unbelieving parents are not excluded 
from salvation by being excluded from baptism, as it is 
not the unbaptized, but he that believeth not that is 
damned, which is not true of infants. It can not be said 
that infants believe not, any more than it can be said 
that they believe. 

4. "It has been objected that baptizing infants, by 
which they are committed to the obligations of the 
covenant, is doing them a wrong, by taking away their 
privilege of choosing their own religion. To this ob- 
jection it is replied, 

" (1.) The same objection could have been used with 
equal force against circumcision. The Jew not only 
committed his children to the covenant, but the Gentile, 
when he embraced the Abrahamic faith, also committed 
his infant offspring to the same religion. Was that 
wrong ? If not, it can be no more wrong now to commit 
them by baptism, whereby the parent pledges to bring 
them up in the faith of the Gospel. 

" (2.) Children never had the right of choosing any 
but the true religion. What that true religion is, the 
parent, under God, is the judge, and is bound to commit 
his children to, and bring them up to believe what he 
believes to be the true religion, to the extent of his 
ability so to do. In so doing, he takes away no right 
from the child. When the child becomes old enough, it 
in turn becomes its right to judge wliat is the true reli- 
gion, and it must assume the responsibilities of the reli- 
gion to which the parent committed it, or repudiate 
them, and this is the right of every human being, being 
held accountable to God. So the duty of the parent is 
performed, and no right is taken from the child. 

" (3.) Parents not only have the right of choosing the 
religion for their children, but it is their most solemn 
duty so to do, and God always has and does now hold 
parents responsible for the religion of their children 
while they are under their control, so far as belief and 
external conformity are concerned. 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISil. 127 

5. '" It has been objected that it can do infants no 
good to baptize them. In reply to this it may be 
remarked, 

" (1.) The same objection might have been urged 
against circumcision. Indeed, it may be urged against 
what is called believers' baptism. The thing in itself 
can do no good, to sprinlde a little water upon a man, 
or to put him under the water. If a man should fall into 
the water and be immersed by accident, he would not 
feel himself particularly benefited; but when he is bap- 
tized, he is or may be benefited. Wherein then is the 
difference ? It arises out of the flict that God has com- 
manded us to be baptized, and out of our conceptions of 
the relation which baptism sustains to the Christian 
system. All the good, after all, arises from the fact that 
God has appointed it. If then God has appointed it 
for infants, it is not for men to say it can do no good. 

" (2.) If it be the seal of the covenant, as has been 
proved, it is presumption to say that when it is placed 
upon children, by their parents, in faith, such children 
are not brought into a more hoj)eiul relation to tlie 
Christian system and the influences under it, by which 
they must be saved. Do parents pray for their infant 
children, before they are capable of moral action ? It is 
presumed that pious parents do. But what good does 
it do ? They are not capable of any conditional salva- 
tion, by faith, or any other condition on their part. But 
God can hear the parents' prayer of faith Avithout the 
faith of the child. This is the only reply that can be 
made ; and if this be a reason for praying for our infant 
children, placing the seal of the covenant upon them, 
may be, in the mind of God, as good a reason for doing 
on their behalf as our prayers, and no man can say that 
baptizing them does not do as much good as praying 
for them." 



128 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 



XL VIII. — The Limeesioxist Bible. 

213. Do immersionists accept the English Bible as 
the word of God ? 

Many immersionists are dissatisfied with the old 
English Bible, and especially with its teachings on the 
subject of baptism. The authorized version of the 
Scriptures does not teach the doctrine of immersion. 
Leading immersionists have organized a society which 
bears the name of the " American Bible Union," whose 
chief object appears to be to secure the issue of a new 
version of the Scriptures that will teach the dogma of 
immersion. 

214. Does the new version teach immersionist theo- 
logy ? 

The new version teaches the immersionist theology 
with great directness and clearness. The suggestive 
and richly-freighted words " baptize " and " baptism " are 
expunged, and in their stead the Roman Avords "im- 
merse " and " immersion " are substituted. The new 
Bible makes short work of the immersionist controversy, 
and at a single stroke attempts to unchurch all the fol- 
lo\vers of Christ who have not been immersed, and all 
Christian churches that do not stand on the immersionist 
platform. 

215. Is this new version indorsed by any who are not 
immersionists ? 

1. It is sometimes disingenuously affirmed that dif- 
ferent denominations cooperate in the publication of the 
new Bible. It is even sometimes asserted that ministers 
of the several Protestant churches are identified with 
immersionists in this enterprise. Those statements arc 
manifestly absurd. It is impossible that a Christian 
minister, whose mode of baptism is sprinkling, could be 
a party to the publication of a book which condemns his 
own personal practice, his own creed, and the discipline 
of his own church. The testimony of any man would 



A CATECHISH OF BAPTISIVT. 129 

be utterly worthless, in any court of justice, who would 
indorse the new immersionist Bible, and at the same 
time hold the ministerial office in a church which teaches 
that the " sprinkling of clean water " is the scriptural 
mode of baptism. 

2. There are probably many good and wise men of 
the Baptist denomination, " too loyal to their own ante- 
cedents, too much alive to the permanent interests of 
that portion of Christ's church, too well versed in the 
languages of the Bible, too courteous to the Christian 
scholarship of the age, to accept the change thu? forced 
upon them, and allow themselves to be unceremoniously 
thrust out of the Baptist Church and swept into the 
church of the immersionists." 

216. Does the publication of the immersionist Bible 
tend to the promotion of the interests of truth ? 

As the immersionist Bible is obviously published in 
the interests of a denomination, its example is clearly 
pernicious. If immersionists may publish a Bible which 
shall teach the prominent, distinctive, and peculiar 
tenets of their creed, other denominations may follow 
their examj)le. The different sects, professing to hold 
the truth revealed in the Scriptures, may each have their 
Bible which, with their peculiar interpretations of the 
original, shall settle in their own way all controverted 
points in theology. The " American Bible Union " has 
no more right to pervert the Scriptures in the interests 
of immersion, than any other sect lias to pervert the 
Scriptures in its interests. The tendency of such a 
course must be deplorably adverse to the interests of 
truth. 

217. What serious defects are apparent in the ncAv 
version ? 

1. Some of the prominent defects of the new version 
have been noticed by Professor Jewett, substantially as 
follows : 

"First, as an English work. While modernizing the 



130 A CATECHIS:>I OF BAPTISM:. 

Language of the common English version in many eases, 
It still retains many of its obsolescent forms, and is thus 
inconsistent Avith itself. Many of its renderings are un- 
intelligible to the common reader. It frequently em- 
ploys tautological expressions — as, ' from hence,' ' from 
thence,' ' from whence,' etc. It recognizes no law for 
the use of English relatives, using who and that indis- 
criminately, even in the same verse. It is equally indis- 
criminate and lawless as re<rards English auxiliaries, 
saying, ' are come,' ' has coiLie,' ' was come,' etc., with 
no apparent law of selection. It recognizes no rule for 
the sequence of English tenses, changing back and 
forth, from past to present, and present to past, in the 
same sentence without rule or reason — as, ' I perceived 
that povrer has gone out of me' — 'Jesus said to those 
vrho have believed on him,' etc. It is equally regardless 
of the proper use of the subjunctive and potential 
moods ; employing the indicative as often as otherwise 
where doubt and futurity are both implied, and oscillat- 
ing from future indicative to present subjunctive in the 
same passage and to express the same idea. Finally, it 
couples words indicating past time with the present 
tenses, and the reverse — as, ' In those days comes,' etc. 

2. '' The new version is also sadly defective as a trans- 
lation from the Greek. Its renderings are often am- 
biguous, often servile, many times weak, or for other 
reasons so infelicitous that it is characterized by the 
utmost latitude of rendering, and is in not a few instan- 
ces obviously incorrect in its translations. Numerous 
pages of evidence have been adduced to show beyond 
all perad venture that it is a disgrace to the scholarship 
of the day, and an affront to the intelligence, liberality, 
and Christian learning of the church. 

3. "It is further objected to this version that it is 
evidently intended to be an instrument of denomina- 
tional 23ropagandism. This is apparent from the fact 
that ' baptism ' is supplanted by ' immersion,' and ' bap- 
tize ' by ' immerse,' etc, and that this change is univer- 



A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 131 

sal. In fact, this is the only characteristic of the version, 
the only change from the common version which is 
carried persistently through. The aim seems to be to 
expunge from the I^ew Testament the very idea of bap- 
tism, and substitute immersion — foreclosing all discus- 
sion. 

4. '' According to the declarations of immersionists, 
ten thousand times repeated, has not this word (baptize) 
always had a definite meaning, which they have express- 
ed by ' baptize,' and of which they have claimed a sort 
of denominational ownership, boasting of their title of 
' Baptists,' and excluding all other branches of the Chris- 
tian church from the Lord's table, on the ground that 
they were unbaptized ? If 'baptize' has always been 
the exact equivalent of 'baptize,' w^hen did it lose its 
signification ? When, how, by what process of defection, 
did it forfeit its ancient and honorable distinction, and 
come to mean something so different, so unlike its 
former signification, as to neetl to be impeached and 
removed from office, and forever disqualified from presid- 
ing over the interests of a large and growing portion 
of the church of Christ ? ' Baptism' is Greek anglicized. 
' Immersion' is Latin anglicized. The former is the 
language of the New Testament; the latter is the 
Roman form. The former is the language of inspira- 
tion ; the latter is man's device. The iormer is the 
thing itself; the latter is what is affirmed to be its exact 
equivalent; then why exchange the one for tlie other? 
Arid if it is not an exact equivalent, then who are they 
who thus dare to pervert the word of God by foisting 
into it the carnal teachino-s of man ?" 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

(724)779-2111 



61/ 



